


^> \ .V \ * O . ^^> < \ V i n ^ 




JS 



1 f () . v^ 



VO^ 













^ ^jIC^ 












^^ 












r :£: 



'^.<^' 



cP -* 



■^ .# 









H o. 






.^ ^-o 




^^^ °- 



'%. .X^' 






•^..O' 



^y-o'' 






< 



■'*'" c^^^ 



V 



^•<^ 






0^^ % 






x^^'*' 

^^'% 






.-(^, 



II 






^^^^^ 






\<^' 















V '^ 



.^ o,. 



.^ 



^ °^ 



V 



^„rr-^^^ c.',,:::^^-\f c^/":7:-y\f ^'■''<-' 







"^ -^ V^^-^\^i 









.^^^^ ^ 









'. ^. 



'^^J)h!'^ %>^ 
















% 



. % 



<^^. 



^txas, MXtxko, anh tl)e llnitcir States. 



B.EVIEW 



OF 



THE RELATIONS 



BETWEEN 



THE UNITED STATES AND MEXICO, 



AND 



OF THE C L AIMS 



OF 



CITIZENS OF THE UNITED STATES AGAINST MEXICO. 



BY RICHAED S. COXE. 



NEW YORK: 
WILSON & CO., 15 SPRUCE STREET 

1846. 



REVIEW 



OF 



THE RELATIONS 



BETWEEN 



THE UMTED STATES AND MEIICO, 



AND 



OF THE CLAIMS 



OF 



CITIZENS OF THE UNITED STATES AGAINST ^lEXICO. 



BY PuICHARD S'. COXE. 



NEW YORK : 

WILSON & CO., 15 SPRUCE STREET 
1846. 






GIFT 

MARGARET W. GUSHING 
JAN. 26, 1938 



S . W . BENEDICT, 
Stereotyptr and l'rinlcr,16 .Si)ruce.Str« 



; 



ji 



TEXAS. ^7 



INTRODUCTION. 

In presenting the following papers to the public in their present shape, 
it seemed proper to accompany them with a brief exposition of the cir- 
cmnstances in which they originated, and of the reasons to which they 
owe their existence. They have already appeared in the columns of a 
newspaper— the first series in the Richmond Enquirer, and the residue in 
the Union. The parties at whose instance they were prepared, have 
judged it expedient to republish them ; while others have concurred in 
this design, under the impression that they embodied, in a condensed 
form, much valuable information upon topics of general importance. 
The present aspect of the relations between the United States and ^Mexico 
is full of interest. Whether or not there will be a formal declaration of 
war, seems yet to be a matter of uncertainty ; but whether that event 
should or should not occur, the affairs of the two governments have 
reached a point, and assumed a character, which imperatively demand 
that the subjects of controversy, w^hich have so long existed, should be 
brought to a definite settlement. The causes of complamt have been of 
long standing, and of an irritating nature. The amicable feelmgs which 
once bound the two nations together, have been obliterated. ]Mutual 
estrangement has succeeded, and terms of recrimmation have been ex- 
changed, rousing on either side the angry passions of the respective 
parties. It is not possible much longer to postpone the adjustment of 
these controveries. They must be terminated through the instrumentality 
of war, or by amicable arrangement. The number and character of the 
reclamations of the parties seem to preclude the possibility of a pacific 
settlement. The claims of citizens of the United States, for remuneration 
for alleged infractions of their rights of person and property, cannot be 
estimated at a smaller amomit than ten millions of dollars. The charac- 
ter of the outrages in which these claims originated has imposed upon the 
government the imperative obligation to demand, and, if necessaiy, to 
enforce, their hquidation. Ever}^ day swells the amount of compensa- 
tion to which the parties are entitled, and increases the incapacity of 
Mexico to provide for their payment. They must either be adjusted and 
paid, or tamely relinquished. The latter alternative, involvmg a renun- 
ciation of every national duty, and the violation of the most positive na- 
tional pledges, cannot, for a moment be anticipated. It may be assumed 



as a positive certainty, that the payment must be vohmtarily made, or en- 
forced by all the power of the nation. It is unnecessary to state that vol- 
untary payment by Mexico, in any form, or to any extent, is utterly 
hopeless. 

In addition to every other impediment which, for many years, has in- 
terposed to prevent Mexico from doing justice to the injured citizens of 
the United States, she has herself, within the last few months, found 
either substantial causes of complaint against our own government, in its 
proceedings and measures in relation to Texas, or at least pretexts upon 
which she asserts that the balance of injury is on her side. She alleges, 
that, in originally populating Texas with our own citizens, in the sever- 
ance of that State from the residue of the republic, and finally in annex- 
ing her to our Union, we have violated every principle by which one 
nation should regulate its intercourse with its neighbors, trampled upon 
all the obligations of solemn treaties, outraged the most clearly defined 
rights of Mexico, and sacrificed justice and equity upon the altar of an 
unscrupulous and grasping spirit of self-aggrandizement. 

With such discordant views of their mutual rights and obligations, it is 
idle to hope that the two parties can arrive at an amicable and pacific ad- 
justment of their difierences. For either to yield, would be to submit, 
without a struggle, to all the consequences of an unsuccessful war, and 
to abandon every ground which has been deliberately and publicly as- 
sumed. The American government cannot retrace its steps. It cannot 
annul the compact by which Texas has become " bone of our bone, and 
flesh of our flesh." It cannot admit that its conduct merits the harsh 
epithets which have been applied to it by Mexico and her friends. As 
little can she retract what she has so repeatedly urged on the subject of 
the claims of her citizens for remuneration and indemnification. She has 
proclaimed that, in the perpetration of the outrages of which she com- 
plains, Mexico has violated our just rights, and that it is the paramount 
duty of the government to afford ample protection to her citizens, and to 
enforce, if necessary, with all the power of the nation, full compensation 
for the wrongs they have sustained from a foreign power. She has sanc- 
tified and solemnized the obligation growing out of the relation of govern- 
ment and citizen, by the most deliberate assurances that this obligation 
is recognized, and the most distinct pledges that his duty shall be fulfilled. 

In this posture of things, it seems vain to expect that specific relations 
can long subsist between the two nations. Each professes to have 
grounds of complaint against the other, which it asserts to be just and 
reasonable ; and each has pledged itself to maintain its rights at every 
hazard. Temporary causes may intervene, and prevent an immediate 
resort to arms by either power ; but the causes of war cannot be removed, 
and they must continue to increase in number and to augment in strength, 
till they bear down every barrier which wisdom or policy may interpose 
to prevent the final catastrophe. 

Such being the relations at present subsisting between the two nations, 
and such their probable issue, it is incumbent upon every citizen of the 



United States to inform himself of the true merits of the controversy, and 
to lend his aid, however feeble that may be, in enlightening the public 
mind upon the subject. His country and his government have been made 
the objects of the most severe denunciation, not only by the antagonist 
party, but by many of our own citizens, whose character and position confer 
upon them extensive influence. The acts of Mexico have been vindicated 
or palliated, while the conduct of the United States has been violently con- 
demned. It is equally our right and our duty to examine the subject, and 
to determine, in the spirit of justice, stimulated but not blinded by the 
impulses of patriotism, whether we are as a nation guilty or not guilty of 
the crimes laid to our charge. 

It is the purport and design of the following papers to examine and dis- 
cuss this interesting question. The result to which the writer's mind has 
been brought, will be apparent on perusing what he has written. Enter- 
taining the fullest confidence in these conclusions he submits them to 
the candid consideration of his countrymen, of all parties and of all locali- 
ties, with a firm assurance in his own mind, as well as of the truth of the 
facts which he has stated, as of the validity of the inferences which he 
has deduced. It may be permitted him to add, that, had his investiga- 
tions conducted him to a different result, and convinced him that his 
country had merited the reproaches which have been cast upon her — that 
her conduct had been disgraced by injustice to a weaker neighbor — that 
her character had been sullied by a propensity to rapine and to robbery — 
he w^ould have mourned in silence over the tarnished honor of his 
nation. He would have preferred, like the virtuous son of the ancient 
Patriarch, rather to have cast a mantle over the nakedness of a beloved 
parent, than with sacrilegious hands to have exposed it to the contemptu- 
ous gaze of a cold and unfeeling world. ' 

It is now somewhat more than five years since the writer was employed 
professionally to conduct the cases of several citizens of the United States, 
who had claims upon Mexico, growing out of injuries inflicted upon them 
by the hands, or under the sanction, of public functionaries of Mexico. A 
convention had recently been consummated between the tw^o powers, 
providing for the organization of aboard of commissioners to examine and 
adjust claims of this description. A full intercourse with the intelhgent 
gentlemen who were his clients, and subsequently with others, supplied 
a mass of mformation as to the history and present state of Mexico, which 
with such published works, as were accessible, and a large number of writ- 
ten documents, (including the entire diplomatic correspondence between 
the two goverments which had been communicated to Congress), fur- 
nished the means of indulging a curiosity to trace, in detail, the entire 
history of the relations w^hich had subsisted between the two nations. 

A mass of materials was thus accumulated, which, under less favorable 
circumstances, could not readily be collected by a single individual ; and 
which would probably have been neglected by any one who had not been 
stimulated by collateral considerations to avail hunself of the opportunities 
thus afforded. The interest which originally prompted to the task, was 



6 

daily increased iii pursuing the investigation of the subject. Those sen- 
sibiUties to the honor and dignity of his country, which it behooves every 
American citizen sedulously to cherish ; — that indignation, which the 
recital of gross and unprovoked wrong is calculated to mspire ; — that 
sympathy, which severe and unmerited suffering awakens — were all pow- 
erfully roused by the continually recurring narratives of Mexican perfidy, 
rapme, and cruelty. It was manifest that the national honor had been 
wantonly and systematically assailed ; — that the lives, the property, and 
the rights of our citizens had been endangered and violated ; — that the 
laws of nations had been continually trampled upon, and the most solemn 
and precise treaty stipulations daily disregarded. Such appeared not as 
msulated and occasional incidents, but as the uniform and unvaried cha- 
racter of the relations which had subsisted between two contiguous 
nations. So few and remote were the exceptions, that the conduct of 
Mexico towards American citizens may almost literally be characterized 
as " nulla virtute redemptmn." 

While such were the traits exhibited by the one party, the deportment 
of the United States, as well government as people, manifested the most 
striking contrast. It had been marked throughout by magnanimity and 
forbearance, by generosity and patient endurance. During the period 
when Spain was rent by the convulsions which upheaved Europe from 
its foundations — when the struggles between the emperor of France and 
the Spanish nation were exhaustmg the strength and resources of the 
parent country, as well as of her American colonies — the United States 
were X)resented with the most favorable opportunities for displaying and 
gratifying that lust of aggrandizement which has at times been most un- 
scrupulously and falsely attributed to the people and government of this 
Republic. There was no necessity to invent or fabricate pretexts for 
plunging into hostilities, and wrenching by force, from the impotent hands 
of Spain, her most valuable territories, as an indemnity for the wrongs she 
had inflicted, and payment of the remuneration which she justly owed. 
We had many and aggravated causes which would have justified a resort 
to war ; and the consequences of a declaration of hostilities could scarcely 
be regarded as doubtful. Our own will would have fixed the only limit 
to our power to appropriate to ourselves the Spanish dominions on this 
continent. Instead of resorting to such measures of redressing our 
wrongs, we patiently waited until the termination of the great wars in. 
Europe left Spain, disembarrassed from this tremendous conflict, which 
for years had been waging in every corner of her realm, free to listen to 
our solicitations for justice. So far from pressing upon Spain in her hour 
of need, the American government discountenanced various attempts 
which were made to overthrow the Spanish authority in the New World. 
It is unnecessary to do more than to allude to the vigorous measures which 
were adopted to aiTest the movements of Miranda, and to defeat the 
projects of Burr. When Spain became relieved, our demands upon her 
were adjusted upon terms the most generous and liberal in their charac- 
ter, to that gallant and suffering nation. We relinquished every claim for 



pecuniary- compensation from her exhausted treasury and impoverished 
people. We ceded our entire claim to the magnificent territory lying be- 
tween the Sabine and the Rio del Norte. We relinquished this claim, 
v/hich, while some may undertake to controvert its clear and perfect va- 
lidity, none can deny to have rested on such a plausible foundation as to 
have stimulated the cupidity of a more ambitious and less scrupulous 
power. For all hese concessions, made by a powerful to a weaker nation, 
we received from Spain the cession of Florida, to one-third of which 
we had long asserted a paramount title, and that title had now been ripened 
by a contmuous peaceable possession, and which, if her title had been 
undisputed, was valueless in the hands of Spain, from her inability to de- 
fend it. Such were the exhibitions of that encroachmg and aggrandizing 
spirit, which has been thought to justify severe animadversions from a 
community, which, centralized in a small island, has extended her sway 
beyond the limits of Alexander's conquests and whose banner floats over 
a wider region than the Roman eagle ever ventured to gaze upon — whose 
foreign territories comprehend a population of one hundred millions. 

Not long after the tenuination of her European contests, Spain found 
herself involved in the struggle which her American colonies had insti- 
tuted to emancipate themselves from her yoke. A congeniality of feel- 
ing, and an almost identification of principle with the people of the 
United States during a similar contest, led our people and oiu: government 
to feel and express a warm sympathy with the infant republics just 
emerging into existence. We afforded them eveiy encouragement which 
was compatible with our neutral position. Many of our citizens volun- 
teered to peril their lives in maintaining the cause of freedom. We 
availed ourselves of the earliest opportunity^ to recognise the establish- 
ment of that mdependence which was yet hardly achieved — exerted our 
influence to procure a similar recognition from the leading powers in 
Europe — and labored to create a combination with them, to induce Spain 
to desist from further efforts at subjugation, and to crown the result by 
her free acknowledgment of the ind(;pendence of her ancient colonies. 
In all these movements, no eye, but one jaundiced by the most morbid 
suspicion, can discover aught but the most sincere and disinterested 
attachment to the great and noble cause of liberal and free institutions. 
Instead of availmg ourselves of the promuieut position which we occu- 
pied on this continent, and of our commanding strength to enlarge our 
boundaries by new acquisitions of territory, we studiously avoided every 
act and every ^vord which indicated any desire of personal advantage. 
Instead of seeking to procure for ourselves those conunercial privileges 
which the services we had rendered might have fmiiished us with 
grounds of claiming as a right, we refused to receive them as a voluntary 
tribute of gratitude for our exertions in behalf of these infant nations. 
We peremptorily declined to accept any advantages in trade, which were 
not extended to the rest of the Chi-istian w^orld ; and the only suggestion 
which we offered, or would hsten to, of the grant of peculiar or exclusive 
rights, was in favor of Spain — the very nation whom we were accused 



8 

of wronging, but who, in fact, had per23etrated upon us the most grievous 
iiijimes. 

Through our intervention mainly, Mexican independence was consum- 
mated, and universally acknowledged. Animated, or professing to be 
animated, by the same liberal principles which had guided us in analo- 
gous circumstances, Mexico assumed, as the basis of her constitution of 
government, the same doctrines w^iich had guided our fathers in Con- 
structing our mstitutions. With few and comparatively unimportant 
modifications, she adopted the main features of the frame of government 
under which we had advanced with unparalleled rapidity in strength, 
prosperity, and happiness. 

Gratified by these manifestations of a community of feeling, and antici- 
pating from such indications a more cordial and harmonious intercourse 
than had ever before subsisted between distinct communities, again the 
people and the government of the United States received the IMexicans 
with almost fraternal affection. Our citizens, enticed by the alluring 
prospects presented to them in this new field of enterprise, encouraged 
by the flattering invitations by which they were tempted, confiding in the 
good faith of a people towards whom w^e had uniformly exhibited 
nothing but kindness and generosity, and whose institutions were so 
similar to our own, emigrated in great numbers to Mexico, and carried 
with them to their new abodes wealth, skill, and enterprise, to be now 
employed in the development of the resources, and the augmentation of 
the strength of their adopted country. 

In thus contributing to the aggrandizement of our sister republic, we 
cherished the firm belief, and the confident expectation, that we were 
knitting the two nations together by the strongest and most enduring 
cords by which separate communities can be connected. Our commercial 
interests, our agricultural products, the various occupations of industry in 
every department, promised the most diverse, yet most harmonious 
sources of mutual advantage. Each was deficient in what was supera- 
bundant in the other. 

Under these auspicious circumstances, feelings of mutual confidence, 
and habits of the most harmonious and unfettered intercourse, were 
equally natural and advantageous. Treaties were arranged between the 
two nations, adjusting all those questions of boundary which might 
threaten collision, and embodying in the form of solemn compacts the 
generous and enlightened principles of a humane and philosophic policy. 
Everything prognosticated an uninterrupted career of tranquillity and 
prosperity. 

These anticipations, so gratifying to the philanthropist and the states- 
man, were not, however, doomed to be realized. It soon appeared that 
the inhabitants of Mexico, habituated to the demoralizing and degrading 
oppression of a stern and unrelenting despotism, were but indifierently 
qualified for the mild and moral restraints of republican institutions. 
The yoke which Spain had so long fastened upon their necks, was, it is 
true, broken; but the breaking of their political fetters did not confer the 



capacity to comprehend or to enjoy the sweets of hberty. The corrupt 
tendencies generated under their ancient influences, now hberated from 
the restramts imposed by their colonial system of government, were only 
permitted to expand more luxuriantly and more vigorously under their 
new institutions. All the vices and iniquities Avhich the slave had learned 
were now practised by the freemen, clothed with the accumulated strength 
and energy which freedom had communicated. All subordination to law 
and government disappeared. The soldiery became the mere organs of 
political revolutions. Anarchy ruled the entire land ; and the most ener- 
getic and most intellectual — at the same time the most unprmcipled — be- 
came the exclusive possessors of sovereign authority. Revolution suc- 
ceeded revohition. The forms of a republic were, to a certain extent, 
preserved ; but they exerted no greater influence, and commanded no 
greater respect, than they had done in ancient Rome, after every vestige 
of liberty had been erased by the Praetorian guards of the Emperor. 

In such a position of the country, where the law yielded no protection 
to the native, it could not be expected to afford a shield to the foreigner. 
Rapine and murder stalked unchecked through the land, and atrocities 
were daily perpetrated, which were justly characterized, by one of our 
distinguished statesmen, as barbarities without paraflel or precedent m 
the annals of civilisation. Citizens of the United States, possessing more 
vigor of character, more industry, more skill m business, than the natives, 
soon became conspicuous for their prosperity and wealth, and, thus ele- 
vated, became temptmg objects to rouse tha cupidity of their neighbors. 
In vain did they appeal to the constituted authorities of the land for that 
protection which had been guarantied by the most precise treaty stipula- 
tions ; the public functionaries were too generally the actors or the ac- 
comxplices in the deeds of cruelty and oppression, to afford them either 
security or redress. In vain did they invoke the mterposition of their 
own government ; the remonstrances of diplomatists were whoHy ineffec- 
tive. The facts which they alleged were either denied with the most un- 
blushing disregard to truth, coolly passed by with contemptuous indiffer- 
ence, or met with vague and indefinite promises of inquiry and compen- 
sation, which, in postponing the demand, accomplished every purpose 
which was either desired or designed. The annexed papers furnish, from 
authentic sources, a brief but faithful narrative of this portion of Mexican 
history. 

At and prior to the time when Santa Anna overthrew^ the existing con- 
stitution, obhterated the confederated republic, and constructed on its 
ruins a military despotism, numerous Americans had established them- 
selves throughout the various provinces of JNlexico, and had engaged in 
a prosperous career in every department of industry. The conmierce be- 
tween the two nations had, in a brief period, swehed to an amount ex- 
ceedmg nine miflions of dohars annually. Steam vessels navigated their 
rivers ; miffs were erected for the purpose of cutting their immense for- 
ests of valuable timber ; plantations of cotton, sugar, and coffee were es- 
tablished ; and the natural resources of the country were rapidly develop- 



10 

ing to the great advantage of the nation, and of the individuals interested 
in these improvements. This scene of prosperity was, however, speedily 
changed. Every engme of oppression was put in motion, to outrage and 
to expel this most invaluable population, and thus to extinguish these 
prolific sources of public and of private wealth. A feeling of intense and 
indiscriminate hatred to foreigners was artfully fomented ; and, without 
remorse, without any effort to arrest the act, without any apprehension 
of punishment following the offence, the lives of American citizens were 
rutlilessly sacrificed, millions of property pillaged or destroyed, and all 
the pm'suits of busmess wantonly annihilated. 

Resistance to the designs of Santa Anna was attempted in several of the 
States of Mexico ; but all opposition was speedily quelled by the sword 
of the despot, and the bayonets of his soldiery, save only in the frontier 
state of Texas. From various circumstances, it had occurred that a 
larger proportion of Americans and foreigners had established themselves 
in that province than in any other portion of the territory of the republic. 
Although feeble in numbers, they were undismayed by the defection 
Avhich was elsewhere manifested, and, inspired by the love of free insti- 
tutions, they determined to protect their constitution, and to defend their 
rights against the usurper. It is an entire perversion of the truth to assert 
that Texas ever revolted against a sovereignty to which she owed alle- 
giance, or revolutionized an established government. She maintained 
her institutions against the efforts of Mexico to overthrow them, and 
adhered loyally to the constitution which the residue of the republic 
labored to subvert, or were impotent to preserve. Her glorious victory 
at San Jacinto confirmed her mdependence of the new central sovereignty, 
which Santa Anna had succeeded in establishing ; and Texas became for 
ever separated from what, under new political institutions, still continued 
to claim the name of the JMexican Republic. 

Havmg consuimnated this act of separation, Texas was shortly after 
recognized as a distinct and independent state, by the United States and 
other principal powers of the world. Mexico persisted in her efforts to 
reduce her to subjection ; but the war, in consequence of the imbecility 
of Mexico, continued to languish, and degenerated into a miserable but 
annoying system of marauding forays. Under these circumstances, the 
citizens of Texas conceived the idea of associating themselves with this 
Union. This project, after encountering many and serious impediments, 
has at length been perfected by the almost unanimous voice of the great 
body of ker people, and been ratified by the constituted authorities of 
both nations. 

In reviewing the history of the relations between the United States and 
Mexico, it will be seen that the latter has rarely found, in the conduct of 
the former, any pretext for complaint. The proceedings of our govern- 
ment in relation to Texas have furnished ahnost the only acts which 
Mexico has even pretended to charge as unjust or injurious to her. These 
proceedings, up to a very recent period, have been thoroughly vindicated 



11 

in the reply of Mi. Webster to the arrogant communication of Mr. Bocane- 
gra to the diplomatic corps. Tn relation to the recent act of annexa- 
tion, ]\Iexico has alleged, as she did in the preliminary proceedings, that 
we have violated her clearly-ascertamed national rights, as well as our 
owm solemn treaty engagements. The imputation involves the violation 
of good faith, and a breach of positive contract. If the accusation is 
well founded, the act cannot be too severely reprobated, or too harshly 
condemned. If unjust, it should be proudly and indignantly repelled. 
An attempt has been made, m the first series of the subjoined papers, to 
exhibit the true merits of this question in a fair and dispassionate form. 

It will be readily perceived that the principal object aimed at in these 
papers, has been to show that ^Mexico has not even a plausible pretext 
for assailing the honor and integrity of this nation, in reference to the 
subject of Texas; that the charge' of infracting the law of nations, of 
violating treaties, or in any shape or to any degree impairing her rights, 
is utterly groundless. It is only in this aspect that the question has been, 
handled. Considered in this point of view, it forms an important item in 
the history of our relations with Mexico, which it has been the exclusive 
object of the entire series of these articles to illustrate. It did not fall 
within the scope of the ■\:\Titer to vindicate the act on any grounds that 
were purely domestic. How far the measure wasui accordance with our 
interests and policy — how far it was in conformity with the principles of 
our constitution — are questions certainly of grave importance. They 
have been discussed elsewhere w^ith consummate ability. Upon them 
the author entertains the most decided opinions ; and these opinions have 
been expressed, without hesitation or reserve, on other occasions. To 
discuss them on this occasion, would be a departure from the exclusive 
object of the present pubhcation, which is restricted to the shigle point 
of vindicating the honor, integrity and good faith of this country in all 
her relations witli Mexico, and exhibitmg in their true character our 
dealings with that nation. 

If these papers— which, so far as regards the form which they assmne, 
have been written " currente callamo," amid other and engrossing occupa- 
tions — shall be instrumental in vindicating, in the eyes of our o\\ti citizens, 
our common country from the aspersions so falsely or iguorantly cast 
upon it, as mstigated by a reckless spirit of aggrandizement to perpe- 
trate injustice upon a neighbormg community— of urging demands upon 
it, which have no foundation in justice — of asserting claims which have 
no substantial existence ;— if they shall have exhibited in their true colors 
and just proportions the character of Mexico, and the imperative obliga- 
tions which rest upon this government to persist in every claim which 
we have asserted, until Mexico shall either voluntarily engage, or, by the 
apphcation of the whole power of the nation, be compelled to atone for 
the multiple d WTongs she has mflicted, to compensate for the grievous 
mjuries which our citizens have suffered at her hands, to atone for the 
insuhs she has offered to our flag and to our government, the object 



12 

sought to be attained will have been fully accomplished. The honor of 
the country, the outraged rights of our people, demand imperatively that 
these results shall be attained ; and the government will be recreant to 
its own duty and its own character, if it shall fail to attain them all. 

RICHARD S. COXE. 
Washington, September 10, 1845. 



13 



No. 11. 

There is an inherent love of honor and of justice prevadingthe public 
mind in this country, ^yhich no man, who duly appreciates the character 
of the American people, will be so senseless or so narrow-minded as for 
a moment to suppose is confined to any particular section of the Union, 
or exclusively enjoyed by any particular party. This deference to prin- 
ciple is co-extensive with our institutions, and as widely spread as our 
territorial limits. Yet it is perfectly obvious that it is by appeals to this 
moral sense of the community that much of the feeling antagonistic to 
the annexation of Texas has been assailed. With how much justice 
this has been done, will appear from a calm and deliberate examination 
of the subject. 

In common with others, both Mr. Clay and Mr. Van Buren, in the 
exhibition of their views, appear to have fallen into a capital error, 
which has given but too much color to these imputations, upon the prin- 
ciples and motives of those who differed with them in opinion, and which 
it is not easy to reconcile with the long and practical experience which 
both of those gentlemen have had in public affairs. They have urged, 
as the chief foundation of their hostility to the measure of annexation, as 
it was presented at the last session of Congress, that it would involve a 
serious injury to the subsisting rights of Mexico. They have intimated 
that, in their judgment, the connection which at one time existed be- 
tween Mexico and Texas still continues ; that this connection cannot be 
rightfally and absolutely dissolved without the express or implied assent 
of both parties ; and that, notwithstanding the public declaration by 
Texas that this connection had terminated, the actual enjoyment of her 
independence, and the formal recognition of this independence by the 
United States, and several of the leading sovereigns of Europe, still, to 
certain purposes, Mexico retains her original claim to the sovereignty of 
the country ; and thiit, until this right of Mexico shall be formally yield- 
ed by her, or, through some indefinite lapse of time, shall be impliedly 
relinquished, Texas remains, and must remain, in the view of public and 
national law, a constituent part of the Mexican territory. They conse- 
quently insist, that, in this posture of affairs, the United States have no 
right, and cannot, without a manifest violation of the prior and unques- 
tioned right of Mexico, form a union with Texas, and, even with her 
free and full consent, receive her into our Union as an integral part of 
our Republic. 

In the views thus exhibited, lies, as is apprehended, a double error : 



14 

the one in the facts assumed as the foundation upon which the opinion 
rests — the other admitting the truth of those facts, in the legal conse- 
quences resulting from them. 

The fact is denied, and history sustains this denial, that Texas, at any 
time, to any extent, or for any purpose, constituted a part of INIexico, or 
was either rightfully or otherwise subject to her sovereign authority. 

In making this broad assertion, we must, of course, be understood as 
distinguishing between Mexico as one separate and independent sove- 
reignty, and the United States of Mexico, or the United Mexican States 
— names given to a confederation and union of several distinct and 
sovereign States, of which Mexico was one, and ihe most prominent. 
Those united States were frequently and familiarly called Mexico, pre- 
cisely in the same manner, and by the same figure of speech, that these 
United States are styled America. This distinction, so important to a 
correct understanding of the subject, and which has been wholly over- 
looked in the objection we are considering, has been for two centuries 
familiar to European history. The United Provinces were seven in 
number, of which Holland, being the principal and more powerful, gave 
•her name in the same way to the whole republic. Austria, simply a 
distinct principality, was a name familiarly used and applied to the entire 
dominions under the sway of her Imperial master. In the year 1776, 
while under the sovereigns of Spain, the vice royalty of New Spain 
comprehended several distinct provinces, among which were Mexico, 
Puebla, Vera Cruz, &c., &c. ; while Coahuila and Texas were not in- 
cluded within that appellation. When the Spanish yoke was thi'own 
off by her American provinces, new and distinct sovereignties were 
created out of the broken fragments. Their independence was not a 
combined, or even a contemporaneous act. The single circumstance 
that all had originally constituted parts of the territory of, and professed 
allegiance to, the same mother-country, did not render them, when that 
connection was dissolved, one independent state. That circumstance 
did not make them a unit in the new condition of affairs. Colombia, 
Central America, Peru, Chili, and others, are, and have been, as com- 
pletely severed from each other as from their common parent. 

In some instances, as circumstances made it expedient, the new com- 
munities thus sprung into existence began to form associations with 
their neighbors upon terms mutually acceptable ; in others they re- 
mained distinctly and separately independent. In the northern part of 
those Spanish dominions the federal system obtained the preponderance, 
end a republican form of government was adopted. This comprised 
nineteen distinct States, and five territories, the population of which 
latter was not sufficient to entitle them to be received upon the same 



15 

footing of equality with the more powerful members of the Union. A 
regular constitution, or form of government, was established, analogous, 
in many respects, to that which prevails in the United States. The 
name assumed by this confederacy was the United Mexican States ; 
and, by the terms of the Constitution, each State retained large and im- 
portant powers, and exclusively managed its own internal concerns. 
The legislative department, like our own, was composed of two bodies 
— the House of Representatives and the Senate. The members of the 
former were elected in the different States — each eighty thousand in- 
habitants being entitled to one representative. The Senate was con- 
stituted of two members, chosen by each State legislature. The execu- 
tive power was deposited in the hands of a president, elected by the 
State legislatures every four years. It is unnecessary, on this occasion, 
to go further into details, illustrating the close resemblance which sub- 
sisted between the constitutional form of government, which was adopted 
by the new republic, and that which exists in our own country. 

Of the republic thus constituted, the State of Coahuila and Texas 
formed an integral part. It was a voluntary association, united by a 
special compact of the most solemn kind and character. It subsisted by 
and in its organic law — its constitution. From this republic (of which 
by her own free assent she composed a part) Texas has never separated. 
She has never revolted against it — never declared herself independent 
of it; nor did she ever assent to, or participate in, its dissolution. 
While it continued in existence, Texas remained faithful to her engage- 
ments, loyal to her allegiance, unswerving in her fidelity. It was dis- 
solved without her consent, against her wishes, in spite of her remon- 
strances. It was annihilated by the voice and action of other and more 
powerful members of the confederacy. It was overturned by violence, 
by force of arms — by what, in the vernacular phrase of the country, is 
termed a pronuntiamento ; elsewhere known by the more expressive 
word, a revolution. 



No. III. 

In our last number it was stated, in a succinct manner, w^at was the 
nature of the union of the States into which Texas entered, and by 
which her political existence became connected with that of Mexico, 
and how that union had been terminated. The question now presents 
itself, what were the legitimate consequences resulting from this state 
of things } A compact had been formed between independent States, 



16 

connecting them under one federal head. That connection was termi- 
nated by the will of a portion of this community, annihilating the bond 
of union, and estabhshing a new form of government, which had not, 
like the former, any foundation in the general consent of the parties. 
What is, then, the condition of a party to the old compact ? Is it under 
any obligation to yield its assent to the change which has thus been 
consummated ? Does it owe any allegiance to the new Government, 
constituted without its assent, and in opposition to its wishes ? These 
inquiries may be satisfactorily answered by reference to our own insti- 
tutions, and by considering them as propounded to ourselves. Our 
national existence owes its birth to circumstances and to principles iden- 
tical with those in which the Mexican Republic originated. When the 
thirteen colonies emancipated themselves from the dominion of England, 
and proclaimed their independence, they each became a sovereign, free, 
and independent State. Each was, by this act, clothed with all the 
attributes of sovereignty, to every extent, and to every purpose. The 
connection with Great Britain was absolutely and entirely dissolved. It 
was as if it had never existed. Each was at perfect liberty to form for 
itself a separate and distinct government ; and no other earthly power 
had the right to interfere with the free exercise of this will. Each 
was entitled, by its own inherent powers, without looking beyond for 
any additional sanction to its course, to unite with, or to remain distinct 
from, each and every other. Had one or more of them judged it ex- 
pedient, they might, even during the pendency of the Revolutionary 
struggle, do as all collectively did — organize their own forms of govern- 
ment, and form alliances with foreign powers. Some might have pre- 
ferred to surrender their separate political existence, so recently assert- 
ed, and still unconsolidated and unconfirmed, by merging it in that of 
some European potentate. One might have gone back to her ancient 
sovereign, Holland ; another might have deemed it more in accordance 
with her interests to yield an unqualified submission to France ; while 
a third, pursuing its own views of policy, might, with equal right, have 
recognized the sovereignty of Spain, and became a part of her Ameri- 
can domain. 

Can this view of the matter admit of any reasonable doubt ? In what 
part of the code of national law it is prohibited } What right would 
have been violated ? The colonies were, and each separately was, per- 
fectly and absolutely independent. This independency was consummate 
and perfect in July, 1776, and owes not a tittle to its recognition by Great 
Britain in the treaty of peace. Such has ever been the doctrine held by 
every statesman and jurist in the United States. In the year 1808, the 
very point came up for decision before the Supreme Court of the United 



17 

States. The language of that high tribunal on that occasion is clear, 
precise, and unequivocal. " This opinion/' they say, " is predicated 
upon a principle which is believed to be undeniable — that the several 
States which compose this Union, so far at least as regards their munici- 
pal regulations, became entitled, from the time when they declared 
themselves, independent, to all the rights and powers of Sovereign 
States, and that they did not drive them from concessions made by the 
British King. The treaty of peace contains a recognition of their inde- 
pendence, not a grant of it." 

Upon the same principles, each of the provinces which had been 
colonized on this continent by Old Spain, when it cast off the ancient 
sovereignty and asserted its independence, became, in like manner, sep- 
arately and distinctly a free and sovereign State. Each possessed all 
the attributes of sovereignty. Each enjoyed, to its utmost extent, the 
right to establish such form of government as to it seemed most suitable 
to its circumstances, and promised to be most conducive to its happi- 
ness. Each was" at perfect liberty to connect himself, under any form of 
alliance or association, with any other power. The same rights of sove- 
reignty which gave validity to the act by which some of these States 
formed a union with each other, made compacts, merged, to such extent 
as they pleased, their separate existence in that of another, or association 
of others, equally entitled it rightfully and effectually to establish a simi- 
lar connection with any other independent power, and form with it a 
joint and united nation upon the same or any other terms. 

There was nothing in the previous connecion between the separate 
provinces of Spain, in the fact of their having been associated in their 
allegiance to the same sovereign, or in the law of nations applicable to 
this state of circumstances, which, when they had achieved their inde- 
pendence, bound them to limit themselves in establishing a confederacy 
with other States, to each other or among themselves. The province 
of Texas had as perfect, absolute, and indefeasible right, in that posture 
of affairs, to form a union with these United States, or Guatemala a 
similar one with France, or Beunos Ayres with Brazil, upon any ternas 
mutually acceptable to the parties, as the same provinces had to form an 
association with each other. If a difference exists, it is assuredly not 
an obvious one ; and none such, it is beheved, has ever been suggested 
from any quarter. 



18 



No. IV. . 

If the views presented in the preceding number be correct — and no 
reason is seen to entertain a doubt upon the subject — then it must be 
conceded, that, at the point of time when Texas had proclaimed and 
consummated her independence on Spain, no consequence flowed from 
her new position which, in any measure, qualified or limited the extent 
of her sovereign rights. There did not result from it, to any extent or 
to any purpose, any obligation to connect herself with Mexico, or any 
subordination to that sister province. She w^as as independent of Mexi- 
co as of Spain. 

The consequence is irresistible, that, at that juncture, the right of 
Texas to form a union with these United States, upon any terms or 
conditions which she might deem expedient, was as perfect and unques- 
tionable as that which she confessedly possessed, and in fact exercised, 
of uniting herself with other free and independent States, in her immedi- 
ate vicinity, and to which circumstances had attached her more closely. 
If it was competent for her, without affording just cause of offence lo 
any power, to do what she has done, when she formed with the States 
of Mexico, Vera Cruz, Puebla, and others, a confederative republic, 
then also might she, in the exercise of the same faculties, and in the 
same form, have united herself with our own government. 

Animated by a generous sympathy, engendered by a common struggle 
for the attainment of common ends, and by an enlarged sense of mutual 
interests, the thirteen colonies, after having proclaimed their indepen- 
dence on Great Britain, in the exercise of their undoubted powers, 
thought it expedient, even before the conclusion of hostilities, to asso- 
ciate together under articles of confederation. This celebrated league 
had its origin contemporaneously with the Declaration of Independence, 
although it did not receive the assent of all the States until the 3'ear 1781. 
After adopting a name for the confederacy, the first article of this agree- 
ment declares that each State retains its sovereignty, freedom, and inde- 
pendence, and every power, jurisdiction, and right, which is not, by this 
confederation, expressly delegated to the United States in Congress as- 
sembled ; and the Sixth Article contains a stipulation which impliedly 
admits the authority to exist, the exercise of which is thus fettered, that 
no State, without the consent of the United States, shall send any em- 
bassy to, or receive any enibasvsy from, or enter into any conference, 
agreement, alliance, or treaty with, any king, prince, or State, &c. Af- 
ter the close of the war, the same parties again judged it expedient to 



19 

perfect this union, and to knit the parts more closely together, and they 
united in establishing a Constitution, which, with but few, and, as regards 
our foreign relations, wholly unimportant alterations, still continues the 
chart of our government. 

Stimulated by our example, animated by congenial motives, and 
placed in the same circumstances, several of the provinces which had 
declared themselves independent on Old Spain, and whose territories 
were contiguous, pursued, almost without deviation, the same course- 
In the year 1824, andj as the face of the instrument itself expresses, in 
the fourth year of independence, and second of the federation, they agreed 
upon, and promulgated a Constitution. One clause in this paper is with- 
out any precedent in the American form. The concluding article, No. 
1751, in terms, declares, that " the Articles of this Constitution, and the 
constitutional act which establishes the division of the supreme power 
of the federation and of the States, can never be reformed." 

The fifth Article of the Constitution, Section 49, declares the object of 
the laws and decrees which may emanate from the general Congress. 
Among these is — " third, maintain the independence of the States among 
themselves, in all that relates to their interior government, in conformity 
to the constitutional act and this Constitution." The form of govern- 
ment is specially declared to be republican, representative, popular, fed- 
eral. Not only are the powers and jurisdiction of the federal govern- 
ment clearly and explicitly defined, but even the form and powers of 
the State governments are expressed with equal caution and distinct- 
ness. 

In 1827, the State of Coahuila and Texas acceded formally to this 
plan of government, by the establishment and promulgation of its own 
State Constitution. Some of the provisions of this instrument are 
remarkable, and indicate a vigilant and sagacious forecast. Among its 
prominent enactments is found this declaration : that the State " is free 
and independent of the other United Mexican States, and of every other 
foreign power and dominion ;" that, " in all matters relating to the 
Mexican federation, the State delegates its faculties and powers to the 
general Congress of the same ; but, in all that properly relates to the 
administration and entire government of the State, it retains its liberty, 
independence, and sovereignty." " Therefore belongs exclusively to 
the same State the right to establish, by means of its representatives, its 
fundamental laws, conformable to the basis sanctioned in the constitu- 
tional act and the general Constitution." 

It was thus, and to this extent, that Texas, by her own free act, as a 
sovereign and independent State, annexed herself to, and became a part 
of the Mexican Republic. The Constitution was, in form and substance, 



20 

in design and terms, a compact between distinct and separate communi- 
ties, prescribing the objects of the union, the terms and conditions upon 
which it was established, defining with precision and accuracy the powers 
delegated to the general government, and those which were retained by 
the State. In general and comprehensive, but perfectly intelligible lan- 
guage, it declared the nature and character of that general government, 
while, in distributing these powers among the several departments, pro- 
viding for the mode in which all the functionaries were to be elected 
and appointed, it was guarded, as far as written^ Constitution can guard, 
against any substantial alteration in these fundamental points. The 
division which it made of the supreme powers of the Republic, and the 
distribution of those faculties between and among the general and State 
governments, was not only made fundamental, but unchangeable for ever. 
It then appears, from tlie most authentic and indubitable evidence, that, 
so far from there ever having been any sovereign authority in Mexico 
over Texas, any inferiority or subordination, they met, acted, and con- 
federated as equal and independent, and as occupying, in every particu- 
lar, and to every purpose, an equal footing. 



No. V. 



The form of government and the character of the connection estab- 
lished by the Constitution of 1824, have been examined. That Consti- 
tution, however, has been dissolved, and the form of government which 
it created and legitimated has been overturned. This catastrophe was 
accomplished, not at the instance of Texas — not by any act of hers — not 
with her aid or participation. It was consummated by the acts of other 
members of the Confederacy, and chiefly through the instrumentality of 
Mexico — the most prominent and the most powerful of the number. In 
the years 1834 and 1835, General Santa Anna, who had previously been 
connected with the constitutional or federal party, suddenly changed his 
ground — at the head of an army overthrew the existing government, 
ejected the general and State legislatures from their halls, and established 
a central military despotism on the ruins of the Constitution. No refer- 
ence was made to the will of the nation — no consent of the people was 
required or given. Wherever opposition was made to the new order of 
things, it was met at the point of the bayonet and overcome. Assuming 
sovereign power, based upon no other foundation than his own individual 
will, he issued the most arbitrary decrees, and undertook to enforce 
their execution by the sole energy of the sword. Texas, animated by 



21 

a feeling which commands our sympathy and deserves our highest eulo- 
gium, singly opposed this power. A convention of the deputies of the 
people was held, and a provisional government was established. Even 
amid all these circumstances, Texas continued true and loyal to her 
engagements. Imitating again the noble example of our forefathers in 
1775, while with one hand she grasped the sword with a fixed resolu- 
tion to maintain her rights and her free institutions, with the other she 
proffered the olive branch. In November, 1835, a manifesto was pro- 
mulgated, couched in language which must commend itself equally to 
the feelings and principles of every votary of rational freedom — 

" Whereas General Antonio Lopez de Santa Anna, and other military 
chieftains, have by force of arms overthrown the Federal Constitution of 
Mexico, and desolved the social compact which existed between Texas 
and the other members of the confederacy, now, the good people of 
Texas, availing themselves of their natural right, solemnly declare — 

" First. That they have taken up arms in defense of their rights and 
-liberties, which were threatened by the encroachments of military des- 
pots, and in defence of the republican principles of the Federal Constitu- 
tion of Mexico of 1824. 

" Second. That Texas is no longer morally or civilly bound by the 
compact of union ; yet, stimulated by the generosity and sympathy com- 
mon to a free people, they offer their support and assistance to such of 
the members of the Mexican confederacy as will take up arms against 
a military despotism. 

*' Third, that they do not acknowledge that the present authorities of 
the present nominal Mexican Republic have the right to govern within 
the limits of Texas. 

'* Fourth. That they will not cease to carry on war against the said 
authorities, whilst their troops are within the limits of Texas. 

" Fifth. That they hold it to be their right, during the disorganization 
of the federal system and the reign of despotism, to withdraw from the 
Union, to establish an independent government, or to adopt such mea- 
sures as they may deem best calculated to protect their rights and liberties, 
but that they will continue faithful to the Mexican government, so long 
as that nation is governed by the Constitution and laws that were framed 
for the government of the political association." 

The principles embodied in this manifesto are substantially those which 
emanated from the fathers of our own Revolution, during the period 
which intervened between the first shedding of blood at Lexington until, 
all hopes of reconcilation being abandoned, the Declaration of Inde- 
pendence consumated for ever the dissolution of the connection by which 
the colonies had been bound to the mother-country. Those sentiments 



22 

and principlest hus commended themselves to the reason and judgment of 
of every American patriot and votary of constitutional freedom through 
Christendom. It is hoped that they have lost none of their titles to our 
respect and sympathy during the years that have since passed. 

As among ourselves, these appeals to principle proved unavailing. 
Santa Anna was not to be moved by declarations of personal rights, and 
securities guarantied by written Constitutions, or derived from the origi- 
nal foundations of government. He persisted in his efforts to subjugate by 
arms those who opposed him. He penetrated Texas with his army : he 
was vanquished on the plains of San Jacinto, and found himself a prisoner 
in the hands of those whom he had hoped to bring under his iron sway. 
Treated with a lenit}^ which he never would have exhibited, had the 
fortunes of war given him the victory, he still perseveres in his 
determination. 

In the meanwhile, finding all plans of conciliation futile and ineffective 
— all compacts broken — all written Constitutions trampled on — the 
inhabitants of Texas, still, if not imitating our example, impelled by the 
same motives, and actuated by the same principles which influenced our 
fathers, in March, ]S36, promulgated a declaration of independence. In 
this memorable instrument, they say : " That the Federal Republican 
Constitution of their country, which they had sworn to support, has no 
longer a substantial existence ; and the whole nature of their govern- 
naent has been forcibly changed, without their consent, from a restrictive 
federative republic, composed of sovereign States, to a consolidated, cen- 
tral, and military despotism." They assert, in detail, the grievances 
to which they had been subjected, and come to a conclusion, the legiti- 
macy of which no citizen of these United States can consistently contro- 
vert — " The necessity of self-preservation, therefore, now decrees our 
eternal political separation." 



No. VI. 

We have now traced, in a rapid mariner, the history of Texas, down to 
the year 1S36, when her independence was not merely formally an- 
nounced in an authoritative form, but actually consolidated by a victory 
as decisive as that which, at Yorktown, consummated the independence 
of these United States. 

Out of the materials which had, by their voluntary cohesion and 
agreement, composed the IMexican Republic, two distinct nations had 
been formed. Mexico, and those of the States which still adhered to 



23 

her, constituted the one, under a system of government which, wholly 
reo-ardless of all the principles of repubhcanism and personal freedom, 
rested upon the sword and military power as its only foundations. On 
the other hand, Texas, who had, in connection with Mexico, thrown off 
the Spanish yoke, who had with her united in establishing a constitu- 
tional federative republican government, adhered to the principles which 
all had originally proposed, and by which all had been originally actua- 
ted, and persisted in remaining free. 

To the new government thus established by her former associates, 
Texas has never yielded her assent. She has never professed allegiance 
to it. She has never recognised its authority. She peremptorily refus- 
ed her concurrence in its establishment, and, from the beginning, has 
proclaimed herself independent of it. By the blessing of God, and \^'ith 
the strength of her own right arm, she has been enabled to maintain this 
independence. The " republican representative, popular, federal gov- 
ernment," instituted, as we have seen, in 1S24, no longer exists — the 
union which was then formed has been dissolved, and this artificial body 
has been resolved into its original elements. 

What, then, is the consequence of such a dissolution thus wrought ? 
The universal sense of mankind, wherever free governments exist — 
wherever written Constitutions are known — furnishes but one answer to 
this interrogatory. The integral parts of the confederation resume their 
original position — they stand where they did before the union was estab- 
lished. Mexico and Texas occupy the same attitude, and possess the 
same absolute and relative rights which they did before they became con- 
nected under their written terms of association. It was by this compact 
that any change had been effected ; that ha^-ing terminated, its effect 
and operation cease. There no longer exists the common head ; that 
has been annihilated by the dissolution of the compact which created it, 
and none other has been substituted. 

To assert that from this course of events it results that Texas owes 
any degree or species of allegiance to Mexico ; that she is still under 
any subordination to, or dependence upon her, or that Mexico has the 
faintest shadow of right to assert sovereignty over Texas — is to draw 
consequences wholly unwarranted by the premises. To say, as Mr. 
Clay most unguardedly says, that " Texas revolted from Mexico," is to 
assume that which has no foundation in the history of the two nations. 

The language of our own Declaration of Independence assumes and 
promulgates the true doctrine upon this point. In that paper it is de- 
clared " that governments are instituted among men, drawing their just 
powers from the consent of the governed, to secure the rights of life, 
liberty, and the pijrsuit of happiness" — ^' That, whenever any form of 



24 

government becomes destructive of these ends, it isthe right of the peo- 
ple to alter or to abolish it, and to institute a new government, laying 
its foundation on such principles, and organizing its povrers in such 
form, as to them shall seem most likely to effect their safety and hap- 
piness." — " When a long train of abuses and usurpations, pursuing in- 
variably the same object, evinces a design to reduce them under abso- 
lute despotism, it is their right, it is their duty, to throw off such gov- 
ernment, and to provide new guards for their future security." Such 
were the principles entertained by our forefathers ; such the language 
in which the}" were announced to the world, as the ground upon which 
the American colonies were justified before God and man in decreeing 
"an eternal separation" from Great Britain. How much stronger was 
the case of Texas ! England had not attempted to subvert the old and 
established form of government. The ground of complaint against her 
was, that she abused the power which she in part possessed, and dis- 
regarded the rights of those whom she had a constitutional authority to 
govern. Mexico struck at the root of the tree. She assailed and un- 
dermined the very foundation upon which the Union rested. She pros- 
trated the entire system of government established by the consent of all 
parties to the confederation. She broke the only tie of connection 
which subsisted between herself and Texas. 

Co2;ent and conclusive as is the argument drawn from our own ex- 
ample in 1776, a still more striking analogy to the circumstances in 
which Texas was placed, by the lawless usurpation of Santa Anna, may 
be imagined. A case may be conceived, which, it is to be hoped, will 
never exist but in the fancy. The several States which compose our 
Union are bound together by a constitutional compact, similar in its 
fundamental characteristics, and even in many of its details, to that 
which existed among the States which constituted the Republic of Mex- 
ico. If it happen, in the progress of time, that a portion of the largest 
and most powerful of our States, under any influences, should deem it 
expedient to alter fundamentally the form of government which is em- 
bodied in our Constitution ; should Massachusetts and New York, Penn- 
sylvania and Ohio, resolve to put an end to the existing state of things, 
and establish a monarchy, or what would more closely approxirxiate to 
the government which existed in Mexico, a military despotism — should 
these powerful States be enabled, by force of arms, to bring this project 
to a successful issue, within their own borders, and to extend it by simi- 
lar means over their weaker neighbors, would such a movement, how- 
ever successfully achieved, establish any right, in the monarch whom 
they might create, to the sovereignty of other portions of the Union 
which might choose to keep aloof from this new arrangement ? Would 



25 

Virginia and Kentucky, the Carolinas and Louisiana, be in any manner 
bound by this proceeding, to which they had never yielded their assent ? 
Would their resistance to this measure merit the name of revolt ? 
Would they, after successfully opposing any attempt to impose this new 
government upon their unwilling shoulders, be legally, or morally, or in 
an}^ other way, incapacitated from forming new political connections 
with each other, or with whomsoever they pleased, upon any terms 
which, in their judgment, might seem best calculated to promote their 
liberty and happiness ? Would the consent of the new monarch be ne- 
cessary to give validity to such compacts ? Would a wrong be inflicted 
upon him by a power which might think proper to favor such a confede- 
racy ? Is it possible that such questions as these can be seriously put, 
or doubts be entertained respecting them by any sober, intelligent mind ? 
Yet there are men, and those among the ablest in the land, who, 
under the circumstances of the case, assert that Texas was, and is, 
in contemplation of law, an integral part of the present government 
of Mexico, bound to it by ties which she has no rightful authority 
to dissolve ; and that, without the assent of Mexico, she is not de 
jure independent, and has no capacity to unite herself with this Re- 
public — who maintain that, by the mere act of forming such a union, 
we are violating: the rio;hts of ^Mexico, and inflictins; a 2;rievous wrono; 
upon the government of Santa Anna. 



No. VII. 

It is apprehended that our first position has been fully established ; 
that it may confidently be asserted, that the essential facts assumed by 
gentlemen who deny the absolute, unconditional, and unqualified right 
of Texas, wholly independent of any assent expressed or implied by the 
subsisting government of ^Mexico, to establish for herself any form of 
government which she may deem expedient, to form any alliance or 
connection with these United States, or who insist that this nation, in 
acceding to any such connection, would thereby viol3.te any ri2:ht of 
^lexico, or furnish her with any just cause or ofience, are wholly un- 
warranted and unsupported by the truth of the case. 

We may now advance to our next position in the discussion. The 
proposition which is now to be asserted and maintained is this : that 
upon the supposition that Texas did originally constitute a part of the 
territory of the present government of Mexico, bound to it as an inte- 
gral portion of that community, yet, having declared her separation and 



26 

independence — having, in fact, consummated that independence by a 
successful resistance to all the efforts of Mexico to subjugate her — hav- 
ing been recognised as a free and sovereign State, in good faith, by these 
United States, as well as by various European powers — she is perfectly, 
absolutely, and unconditionally independent, and has a perfect, absolute, 
and unconditional capacity to exercise all the faculties of sovereignty ; 
among which is the right to unite herself in any manner, and upon any 
terms, which she may think expedient, to any other, although foreign, 
State. 

By the terms of the proposition, as thus stated, certain facts are con- 
ceded for the sake of argument. It is assumed that Texas, at one time, 
formed a component part of the present Republic of Mexico ; that she 
has separated herself from, and declared herself independent of, her for- 
mer rightful and acknowledged sovereign — facts which, it has been fully 
demonstrated, are at variance with the truth of history. Nor does the 
position which has been advanced involve any inquiry by us into the 
causes of this supposed revolution, or any judgment as to which party 
in the struggle had the better right. This is a subject upon which, 
however clear our opinions may be as individuals, we are not authorized, 
as a nation, to decide. The facts upon which our conclusion mainly 
rests are uncontroverted and incontrovertible. The independence of 
Texas actually exist ; and its existence has been publicly acknowledged 
by our own and other governments. The legitimate result from this 
state of things is, it is believed, that as regards Texas herself, and as re- 
gards all other powers, especially those by whom her independence has 
been recognised, her former connection with Mexico, whatever it may 
have been, has, to all and every purpose, been absolutely dissolved ; 
that she has as perfect a right to unite herself with this Union as with 
Mexico herself ; and that the United States, in acceding to such a con- 
nection, infringes no right of Mexico, violates no injunction of the law 
of nations, and, consequently, offers no offence to that government. 
The main, if not the only, ground which has been advanced by the oppo- 
nents of this doctrine, is, that, notwithstanding the facts incorporated 
into the propositions, (which are not controverted), yet, so long as Mex- 
ico withholds her acknowledgment of the independence of Texas, and 
persists in asserting her lawful right to sovereignty over her, this inde- 
pendence is only a quasi one ; that it is inchoate only, and imperfect; 
and that other nations cannot, without a violation of duty towards Mexi- 
co, disregard or do, any act contrary to the rights of that pov^er. 

Such is understood to be the length and breadth of the objection now 
to be considered ; and it is my pnisent purpose to demonstrate (as it is 
thought can be clearly done) that it is at variance with the received 



27 

doctrines of the law of nations, and emphatically with the uniform inter- 
pretation given to that code by the government of the United States. 
It is apparent, that this objection rests upon the assumption, that, in refer- 
ence to the relations which subsist between a particular government and 
all foreign nations, a distinction exists, well understoood and recognised 
between a sovereign de jure, and a sovereign de facto. To apply this 
doctrine to the case in hand, that, although Texas is de facto indepen- 
dent, yet, so long as Mexico perseveres in asserting her supposed origi- 
nal right of sovereignty, she must be recognised as the de jure sove- 
reign. 

It is said this distinction is assumed to exist ; for throughout the entire 
discussion, no citation, it is believed, has been made from any authorita- 
tive writer on public law which affords it the slightest countenance. 
With great deference and unfeigned respect to the very distinguished 
individuals who have lent to this doctrine the weight of their authority, 
it may with great confidence be asserted, that it has no foundation or 
support in the law of nations. No such distinction will be discovered 
in Grotius or Vattel, or other eminent v/riters on this science. On the 
other hand, the principles which pervade that code, as well as those 
which have been practically adopted and enforced in the intercourse of 
nations, are diametrically at variance v/ith any such idea. Drawing our 
conclusions from these sources, we find this doctrine theoretically assert- 
ed and. practically acted upon, that the sovereign or sovereignty in fact, 
which is in actual possession and enjoyment of power, whether rightfully 
or wrongfully obtained, is that alone which foreign nations are under any 
obligation, or have any authority, to recognise. It is for the acts of the 
actual rulers that the nation is responsible to other governments, whe- 
ther they. have acquired their authority by constitutional means or by 
lawless usurpation. While the matter is in controversy, they assert the 
right of foreign nations to interpose in the contest in favor of the party 
whom they suppose in good faith to have the better right ; but, the fact 
being established by the successful termination of the struggle, they 
have no further right to interpose ; nor are they empowered to look be- 
yond the mere fact of possession. This is, beyond all reasonable doubt, 
the rule prescribed by writers on public law ; and the numerous instan- 
ces in which it has been asserted and acted upon, are familiar to every 
reader of modern history. 



128 



No. VTIL 



The doctrine under examination, which distinguishes between a de 
jure and a de facto sovereignty, and which, it is contended, has no place 
in the code of international law, will appear, upon examination, to be 
one exclusively belonging to the municipal law of England. Even in that 
country it is of doubtful and uncertain existence, restricted by the best 
writers within very narrow and not very precise limits ; and, when 
correctly interpreted, is not susceptible of application to the controversies 
which arise between independent nations. 

Such as it is, this doctrine originated in the disputed successions for 
the crown of England, which for so many years unsettled all the founda- 
tions of social order, and deluged the country with blood. Blackstone 
furnishes us with a succinct view of its origin, in the first volume of his 
Commentaries ; and other distinguished English common law lawyers 
either refuse any countenance to it as a principle of law, or so interpret 
its meaning, or restrict its application, as to leave it little more than a 
nominal existence. Blackstone informs us that " the crown descended 
regularly from Henry IV to his son and grandson, Henry V and VI ; in 
the latter of whose reigns, the House of York asserted their dormant 
title, and, after imbruing the kingdom in blood and confusion for seven 
years together, at last established it in the person of Edv/ard IV. At 
his accession to the throne, after a breach of the succession that continued 
for three descents, and above threescore years, the distinction of a king 
de jure and a king de facto began to be first takcriy in order to indemnify 
such as had submitted to the late establishment, and to provide for the 
peace of the kingdom, by confirming all honors conferred, and all acts 
done by those who were now called usurpers, not tending to the disin- 
heritance of the rightful heir. In Statute 1, Edw, IV, c. 1, the three 
Henries are styled " late kings of England successively, in dede and not 
of ryghte." And in all the charters which I have met with of King 
Edward, wherever he has occasion to speak of any of the line of Lah- 
caster, he calls them ^'nuper de facto ct non de jure reges Anglioe.''^ 

Such is the account of the introduction of this phrase into the munici- 
pal code of England, and the view which it exhibits is corroborated by 
the interpretation which Lord Coke had long before given to it — an 
interpretation which, if correct, at once precludes the idea of incorporating 
it into the code of international law. Lord Coke says, that " a king de 
facto is one that is in actual possession of a crown, and hath no lawful 
right to the same ; in whicii sense, it is opposed to a king de jurtj who 



29 

hath right to a crown, but is out of possession." Blackstone, in his 4th 
Commentaries, adopts fully this interpretation, and speaks of a " usurper 
who hath got possession of the throne" as the king de facto ^ and illus- 
trates his idea by putting the case of " the king of Poland or Morocco" 
invading the kingdom, and by any means obtaining possession of the 
crown. 

Surely those who have interpolated this phrase into the law of nations, 
and applied it to questions and to parties with which it has no rational 
or just connection, must have equally misapprehended its true significa- 
tion and its appropriate position. It presupposes a previous judgment 
upon the only question over which no foreign power has or can right- 
fully exercise any jurisdiction — the question of right in the one party, 
and absence of right in the other. To apply it to the position which 
Mexico and Texas occupy, and the relations which subsist between them, 
it admits of no other signification than is expressed in this paraphrase — 
although Texas is in fact in the actual possession and enjoyment of 
sovereignty, it is only de facto ; for " she has no lawful right to the 
same ;" it belongs, cfe Jwre, to Mexico, because she " hath right, but is 
out of possession." Upon this question of right, we confessedly have 
no authority, as a nation, to decide, although it will be difficult to find a 
citizen of the United States who will deny the justice of the case to be 
with Texas. One of our most distinctly expressed doctrines — one uni- 
formly maintained throughout our entire history, under each successive 
administration, under all circumstances, and by every party- — is that 
which asserts the right of every i^ation to govern itself in its own way, 
without the intervention of foreign powers, and the absence of all right 
on the part of foreign governments to interfere in the domestic contro- 
versies of other nations. 

These were the principles announced as those by which we were 
animated during the struggle between Mexico and Spain ; and they are 
so distinctly stated by Mr. Van Buren, when, in 1829, he held the office 
of Secretary of State, as to supersede the necessity, at this time, of 
making further citations ; which, however, might be almost indefinitely 
multiplied. In a despatch from Mr. Van Buren to Mr. Butler, dated 
16th October, 1829, he says: *' The United States, drawn by a com- 
munity of views and feelings towards a young nation, engaged, as they 
once had been, in a struggle for life and death — for independence and 
freedom — continued to sympathise with Mexico ; and nothing but their 
immutable principles of non-interference in the domestic concerns of 
other nations, and of inviolable neutrality towards belligerents, prevented 
them from extending a helping hand to the young republics of America. " — 
*' From the moment that, consistently with their rule of conduct and the 



30 

established principles of public law, they could consider Mexico and 
Spain as two distinct nations, which fate had for ever separated, the 
United States pronounced the freedom of America j and their Congress, 
with a unanimity of wdiich the history of legislation affords no example, 
invited Mexico and her sister republics to take their rank among the 
independent nations of the earth. The influence which this important 
event had upon the conduct of the European powers is too well known 
to require elucidation. The example of the United States w^as followed 
almost immediately ; and Mexico, a little more than one year after she 
had proclaimed her independence, was represented at Washington by a 
minister, invested with all the prerogatives of an ambassador of a free 
State, and diplomatic and commercial relations were soon after established 
between her and the most influential powers of the Old World/' 

In this State paper, no allusion is made to the new doctrine of a quasi 
independence — of a distinction between a sovereignty de facto and de 
jure. The non-interference by the United States in the struggle for 
freedom, during its continuance, is placed upon the rightful ground — 
" the immutable principle of non-interference in the domestic concerns of 
other nations" — while that independence was neither declared nor con- 
summated ; and, when thus declared and recognised, upon the ground 
equally sacred among us — that of '' inviolable neutrality among bellige- 
rents." These principles are ample, in all similar cases, to furnish 
guides to our conduct. They are based upon a solid foundation, viz : 
that among foreign States all occupy an equal position — all have equal 
rights — no judgment can be pronounced upon the questions which divide 
them. The de jure and de facto doctrine, on the other hand, implies 
inferiority of position, inferiority of right, and the capacity of a foreign 
power to pass its judgment on these questions. 



No. IX. 

In the last preceding number of these remarks, it was designed to 
establish the broad and comprehensive doctrine, as a part of the great 
code of laws which regulates the intercourse between different nations, 
that the law of non-intervention and of neutrality are distinct branches 
of the system, founded upon and implying an equality among the mem- 
bers of the great family governed by it ; and that not only is the doctrine 
of a distinction between a sovereignty dejure and de facto not to be found 
among its provisions, but it is directly at variance with its best under- 
stood and most clearly defined provisions. 



31 

It is now proposed to show that this is in precise accordance with the 
opinions and acts of the government of the United States at all times, 
and under all circumstances. The doctrine which has ever been avowed 
and maintained by this nation upon this question, is understood to be 
this : that when the subsisting government is changed in any foreign 
country, either by a revolution or by a separation of its parts — by the 
overthrow of the former rulers, or by an attempt of a portion to disen- 
gage itself from an existing connection with another part, the new sov- 
ereignty is deemed perfect and absolute, when either it is conceded by 
the old sovereign, or is recognised by our own executive as having been 
accomplished in point of fact. 

This was the policy of Washington when he recognised the various 
phases which the government of France assumed during her revolution. 
It was pursued by every successive administration from that day to the 
present. Disclaiming, as we uniformly did, all right to interfere in the 
existing struggles which upheaved the old established forms of govern- 
ment, and overthrew the thrones in most of the ancient monarchies of 
Europe, we limited our view to those actually in possession of power — 
recognised the successive rulers who rapidly rose, like phantoms, to 
places of authority, and as speedily sunk, to be in turn succeeded by 
others whose career was equally evanescent. The thrones of Naples, 
Spain, and Portugal were vacated, and the United States uniformly 
acknowledged the existing sovereignties. They did more ; they as 
uniformly insisted that the nation was responsible for the outrages perpe- 
trated upon the rights of our citizens, by what were termed the intrusive 
governments. France was required to make compensation for injuries 
which we had sustained under the administration of the Directory, the 
consulate, the Emperor ; and the house of Bourbon was called upon to 
pay for wrongs inflicted by their own enemies, which reclamations were 
finally adjusted by Louis Philippe. Spain indemnified us for violations 
of our rights by the French authorities ; Naples for those we had suf- 
fered under the reign of Murat. This principle is at this time univer- 
sally recognised as the doctrine of the law of nations throughout Europe, 
alternately asserted and submitted to by every one of the powers of the 
Old World. 

The recognition of a subsisting sovereignty in a foreign nation, is a 
solemn and authoritative act, to be executed by that department of the 
government to which the Constitution has entrusted it. When the exec- 
utive has thus recognised the fact of independence, it is without qualifi- 
cation or condition, and is binding upon the nation. The new sovereign 
is deemed, to every purpose, sovereign, when either his existence is 
recognised by our own government, or is acknowledged by the pre-ex- 



32 

isting superior authority. Such was the view judicially taken of this 
question by the Supreme Court, in 1808. Chief Justice Marshall, in 
delivering the opinion of the court in a case involving this point, thus 
expresses himself: 

" The colony of St. Domingo, originally belonging to France, had 
broken the bond which connected her with the parent State, had de- 
clared herself independent, and was endeavoring to support that inde- 
pendence by arms. France still asserted her claim of sovereignty, and 
had employed a military force in support of that claim. A war de facto 
then unquestionably existed between France and St. Domingo. It has 
been argued that the colony, having thus far maintained its sovereignty 
by arms, must be considered and treated by other nations as sovereign in 
fact, and as being entitled to maintain the same intercourse with the 
world that is maintained by other belligerent nations. In support of 
this argument, the doctrine of Vattel has been particularly referred to. 
But the language of that writer is obviously addressed to sovereigns, not 
to courts. It is for governments to decide whether they will consider 
St. Domingo as an independent nation ; and, until such decision shall he 
madcy or France shall relinquish her claim ^ courts of justice must consider 
the ancient course of things as remaining unaltered, and the sovereign 
power of France over that colony as still subsisting." 

In that case, the late lamented Mr. Du Ponceau was questioned by the 
court, and in answer, observed : " The question is, whether France can, 
by the force of the law of nations, seize and confiscate vessels of neutral 
nations trading to Hayti } If it is admitted that the situation of France 
is a war, it follows that France is at war and we are neutrals. If neu- 
trals, we cannot judge of anything de jure which is the subject of con- 
troversy between France and Hayti. Hayti contends that, de jure she 
is an independent State. France contends that, de jure, Hayti is her 
dependent colony. Of this, as neutrals, we are not permitted to judge. 
We find them at war together, and at issue on this question of dependent 
or independent. We must take them both to be right." Further on, 
he adds, that we have nothing to do with the claims of France to the 
sovereignty of Hayti : " We who are not bound to support her dignity, 
recognize her rights only so far as they are sanctioned by the laws of a 
war of the nature of that in which she is engaged, and no further ; and 
ihey do not bind us further than the l^fws of war, applied to the par- 
ticular war existing, expressly authorized ; but they bind us so far." 

This learned jurist — and few men in this or any other country have 
been more distinguished for a large and comprehensive acquaintance 
with pubHc law — maintained the doctrine that, even during the period 
when the parties were asserting their respective claims and pretensions, 



33 

flagante bello^ the rights of either party rested exckisively upon the laws 
of war, and the obligations of other nations were limited exclusively to 
those of neutrality. So far as the particular issue was involved we have 
seen the judgment pronounced by the Supreme Court. That question is 
definitely settled, so far as such foreign nation is concerned, by the recog- 
nition by the constitutional authority of an existing independence. That 
being settled, nothing else remains but the ordinary rights of bellige- 
rents and the ordinary obligations of neutrality. 

It has thus, it is apprehended, been conclusively demonstrated by the 
highest authority recognized in our land — the opinions and acts of our 
most eminent statesmen, the opinions and judgments of our ablest jurists 
— that, even were an active war now in prosecution between Mexico 
and Texas, for the purpose of the recovery, by the former, of her 
alleged sovereignty, j^et, from the instant the United States, in good faith, 
acknowledged the independence of the latter, we are bound to regard 
the two contending parties as equally right in the contest, and our only 
obligation is, to extend to them equally the same measure of justice ; 
and that is to be regulated by their respective rights as belligerents, and 
our duties to each of them, as ascertained by the laws of neutrality. 

The only question, then, which remains open upon this point, is, 
whether the United States may lawfully and without affording just cause 
of offence to Mexico as a belligerent, in good faith purchase Texas 
from her present owners ? or with the assent of her people, according 
to their institutions, unite her to ourselves ? 

Upon this point, we have authority equally high as any we have cited 
to sustain our previous views. During the administration of Mr. Jeffer- 
son, the United States opened negotiations for the purchase of Louisiana 
from France. It was about the period of the termination of the brief 
and hollow peace brought about by the treaty of Amiens. Great 
Britain meditated a military expedition, for the purpose of subjugating 
that province to her own dominion ; and the question naturally present- 
ed itself, how will England regard this acquisition of territory, which she 
entertained-every hope of subjugating to her own dominion from a for- 
eign enemy ? Anticipating an objection from this quarter, Mr. Madison, 
on the 75th of May, 1803, addressed to Mr. Livingston, our Minister in 
France, a despatch, in which he says : " As the question may arise, how 
far, in a state of war, one of the parties can, of right, convey territory to 
a neutral power, and thereby deprive its enemy of the chance of conquest 
incident to war, especially when that conquest may have been actually 
projected, it is though proper to observe to you — Lst, that, in the present 
case the project of peaceable acquisition by the United States originated 
prior to the war, and, consequently, before a project of conquest could 
3 



34 

have existed ; 2d, that the right of a neutral to procure for itself, by a' 
bond fide transaction, property of any sort from a belligerant power, 
ought not to be frustrated by the chance that a rightful conquest thereof 
might thereby be precluded. A contrary doctrine would sacrifice the 
just interests of peace to the unreasonable pretensions of war, and the 
positive rights of one nation to the possible rights of another. A resti^aint 
on the alienation of territory, from a nation at war to a nation at peace, 
is imposed only in cases where the proceeding might have a collusive 
reference to the existence of the war, and might be calculated to save 
the property from danger, b}^ placing it in secret trust, to be re-conveyed 
on the return of peace. No objection of this sort can be made to the 
acquisitions we have in view." In conclusion, he says : " With these 
observations, you will be left to do the best you can, under all circum- 
stances, for the interests of your country ; keeping in mind that the rights 
we assert are clear, that the objects we pursue are just," 



MEIICO. 



No. I. 

The present attitude of the government of the United States and 
Mexico is calculated to awaken the serious attention of the people 
of this country, and demands the most deliberate consideration 
of the Executive. Mexico has thought proper to suspend all 
diplomatic intercourse with the United States. She has taken umbrage 
at the proceedings of the President and of Congress, in relation to the 
annexation of Texas ; and while she has withdrawn her representative 
from the United States, declines all further correspondence with our 
minister at her Capital. This is a high-handed measure. It cannot, of 
course, be of indefinite duration. It is utterly impossible for the two 
countries, between whom so many relations subsist, to remain for ever in 
this position ; nor can the United States, with a proper feeling of self- 
respect, and with a just regard to its own duties to its citizens, submit to 
such a condition of things. 

It becomes, however, important to inquire what is to be the result of 
this sino-ular announcement. Mexico has ao;ain assumed a menacino; 

o CO 

tone, and threatened, as she has before done, to vindicate w^hat she calls 
her wounded honor and her injured rights, by a declaration of war. On 
a former occasion, when similar consequences were held out to deter us 
from the course which we thought our honor and rights required, Mr. 
Webster administered a rebuke which led to a withdrawal of this offensive 
language. If, said he, " the peace of the two countries is to be disturb- 
ed, the responsibility well be devolved on Mexico. She must be 
answerable for consequences. The United States, let it be again repeat- 
ed, desire peace. It would be with infinite pain that they should find 
themselves in hostile relations w-ith any of the new governments of this 
Continent. But their government is regulated, limited, full of the spirit of 
hberty, but surrounded, nevertheless, with just restraints ; and greatly 
and fervently as it desires peace with all States, and especially with its 
more immediate neighbors, yet no fear of a different state of things can 
be allowed to interrupt its course of equal and exact justice to all 



36 

nations, nor to jostle it out of the constitutional orbit in which it 
revolves." 

Should this unhappy and misgoverned country rashly undertake to 
carry these threats into execution by a declaration of war, but one course 
will be left for the United States to pursue. She will be compelled to 
prosecute this war with vigor, and press it to a successful close with 
all promptitude. 

Should it, however, (as there seems some reason to anticipated), ba 
decided by Mexico to abstain from an appeal to arms, and to rest it in 
the position she has assumed, of a mere discontinuance of diplomatic 
intercourse, then it behooves us to determine upon the course which it 
is our right and duty to adopt. It becomes, also, an important inquiry 
whether, even before Mexico shall finally determined upon her ulterior 
course, it would not be advisable and becoming to anticipate her deci- 
sion, and afford her an opportunity of bringing the subject of controversy 
to the more amicable arbitrament of negotiation. 

The citizens of the United States have large claims upon Mexica. 
They are of a very aggravated character, and many of them of long 
standing. A portion of these have already been investigated, and the 
amount of compensation adjusted. Much the greater part, however, 
remain unliquidated ; but both governments have solemnly and mutually 
bound themselves by positive treaty to examine and decide upon them. 

It cannot for a moment be supposed that the United States will assent 
to a rehnquishment of these claims, or suffer Mexico to maintain her 
assumed silence in regard to them. If she thinks proper to terminate 
her oiBvjial intercourse with this government because she complains of our 
conduct in regard to Texas, she cannot be permitted to suppose that, in 
this manner and under this pretext, she can avoid the payment of our 
just demands upon her. We believe that, in our proceedings relative to 
Texas, we have done no wrong to Mexico, have violated none of her 
rights, and have contravened no treaty stipulations, and no requirement of 
national law. Mexico asserts the contrary. To break off all intercourse 
between the parties is certainly an unusual way of adjusting these con- 
flicting pretensions, and a novel mode of obtaining redress for an alleged 
injury. The question is open ; and so far as that question merely is 
concerned, Mexico is certainly at perfect liberty eithef to make it the 
subject of amicable discussion, or to pout in sullen silence, as she may 
think most conducive to her interests, and most reconcileable to herown 
estimate of national honor. 

In regard, however, to her obligations to make compensation to our 
citizens, the case is wholly different. Our government has repeatedly 
asserted, in every form and mode whi(,-h our institutions allow, that 



37 

Mexico has inflicted upon us serious injuries, has perpetrated wrongs 
which she is bound to redress, and that the governme-nt of the United 
States is under imperative obligations to see that ample compensation in 
provided for them. Mexico has herself acknowledged the justice of the 
charge. In regard to a portion of the cases, the damages have been liqui- 
dated by a board, created by the joint action of the two parties ; at the par- 
ticular solicitation of Mexico, a period of five years wa-s liberally allow- 
ed her, within which to. pay the amount awarded against her. The 
money was to be paid in quarterly instalments. At this moment, 
five of these instalments are in the arrear. In regard to two of them, a 
singular, and — to the "unfortunate claimants, an inexplicable — mystery 
hangs over the subject. The official dignitaries of both countries have 
averred that the instalments of April and July, 1844, were in fact paid to 
"the agent of the American government in August last ; and this assertion, 
so far as the pubhc is apprised, has never been officially contradicted. 
Nevertheless, the money has not yet been received in Washington ; and 
where it actually is, is still a profound secret. But the three last instal- 
ments, due in October, January, and April, have unquestionably not been 
paid ; and Mexico is in default at least to that extent. 

In regard to the unliquidated claims, Mexico also has solemnly stipu- 
lated to provide for their adjustment and payment. A convention was 
framed in her own Capital, under her own immediate supervision, pro- 
viding for this adjustment. Its general provisions have been acceded to 
by both governments, and certain modifications were suggested by the 
Senate of the United States, in no degree affecting the general principles 
which had been mutually recognized. Yet this instrument, thus in- 
complete, has been before the Mexican government for more than a 
twelvemonth ; and, during this entire period, she has not deigned to 
reply to the reiterated and importunate call of our minister for her decision 
in regard to it. 

It becomes, then, an important and interesting question, What course 
do the interests of the United States and her obligations to her citizens re- 
quire to be adopted } The subject will be pursued in a subsequent 
number. 



No. IL 



The inquiry which has been proposed is, what course ought the Uni- 
ted States to pursue in the present position of affairs between her and 



3S 

INIexico ? The question assumes, as its basis, the now-existing circum- 
stances between the two nations. It assumes, that now the question is 
to be answered, now the course is to be determined. Before Mexico 
shall have further committed herself — before affairs have taken a direc- 
tion which it might be difficult, if not impracticable to change — how are 
we to act ? 

As has been shown, the citizens of the United States have claims to 
a very large amount, (probably to the extent of at least ten millions of 
dollars) upon the government of Mexico. The validity of these claims 
has been recognized by both nations, and the national faith of the United 
States has been pledged that the pa^^ment of them must and will be in- 
sisted on. Mexico has taken offence on a collateral and independent 
question, and closed the ordinary channel of national intercourse. 

The government of the United States has been compelled, in conse- 
quence of the hostile demonstrations on the part of Mexico, to despatch 
a powerful squadron to the gulf, prepared to prevent or resist any war- 
like movements. The naval force in the Pacific is, of course, apprised 
of the posture of affairs. Troops have been assembled on our southern 
firontier, ready to act as circumstances may demand. 

These proceedings, however, are purely and exclusively defensive. 
Unless Mexico should commence hostilities, nothing will be attempted 
on our sid€. The presence of an imposing force on her seaboard, and of 
an army on her northern frontier, may operate to deter Mexico from the 
egregious folly of declaring war, but it is impossible to anticipate what 
her wilfulness may lead to. 

As regards our own course, it would be equally unwise and unbecom- 
ing for us to wait for the development of her views and conduct. Our 
proceedings should be independent of her movements, and dictated alone 
by a regard to our own rights, duties, and interests. The history of our 
country furnishes a precedent for our instruction, and points out a course 
which, at the time, commanded the general approbation of the nation 
and of the world. 

In 1833, during the administration of General Jackson, a case almost 
parallel occurred. By the treaty of July 4, 1831, France had stipulated 
to pay twenty-five millions of francs in satisfaction of the claims of Ame- 
rican citizens on that government, for illegal seizures of their property, 
and violations of their rights. The money was to be paid by instal- 
ments of certain sums, at specified periods. The King of the French, 
who had concluded the treaty, used every exertion, and employed all 
his influence, to obtain from the legislative department an appropriation 
to enable him to fulfill the terms of the arrangement. From causes be- 
yond his control, he had been unsuccessful in these efforts. Payment 



39 

was ATithheld ; and a draft drawn by the American government on 
France was returned protested for non-payment. President Jackson, 
keenly sensitive upon every subject connected with the honor and dignity 
of the nation, transmitted a communication to Congress, in which he 
employed language that gave offence equally to the French government 
and the French nation. Under the influence of this irritation, France 
withdrew her minister^ tendered his passports to our Representative at 
her court, and suspended all diplomatic intercourse with the United 
States. Thus far, the cases are strikingly analogous ; but great and im- 
portant differences exist. The subject of the treaty arrangements was 
the same in both instances — it was the claims of private citizens of the 
United States for lawless injuries inflicted upon their persons and pro- 
perty by a foreign power. In both cases the validity of these claims, 
and the obhgation to compensate for these wrongs, had been secured by 
positive treaty stipulations. In both cases these conventional arrange- 
ments had been violated, and payments which had been promised were 
withheld. The ground of complaint which was raised was, in both 
cases, purely collateral. In the one, France took offence at the lan- 
guage employed by the President, in an official communication to Con- 
gress. In the other, Mexico has taken umbrage at the proceedino"s re- 
lative to Texas. In each case the offended party resented the supposed 
wrong by the suspension of diplomatic intercourse. Here, however, the 
parallel stops. In regard to France, no cause of complaint existed against 
the executive. The King and his ministry had faithfully done all in 
their power to comply with their engagements ; they had recognized the 
binding force of the treaty which they had signed; they employed all the 
constitutional means they possessed to fulfil their obligations ; they had 
failed in their efforts merely by the omission of the Legislature to meet 
the necessary appropriations ; and they gave the most satisfactory assu- 
rances to the United States, that they would persevere in their exertions 
to fulfil their engagements. 

How widely different has been the conduct of Mexico ? And what 
a contrast does it exhibit to the manly and honorable course of the French 
government ! From the moment it was apprised of the result of the 
hoard of Commissioners, every effort has been employed by the Mexican 
executive to rouse a feeling of exasperation and hatred against the gov- 
ernment and people of the United States. Every epithet of opprobrium 
and disgrace has been lavished.upon us. The representative of the Prus- 
sian government, who acted as umpire between the American and Mexi- 
can commissioners, came in for his share of these pitiful calumnies, until 
they were stopped by the decided tone assumed by the Prussian minister 
at Mexico. The money which was to be appropriated to the payment 



4a 

of the awards was raised by a species of forced contribution, in the most 
oppressive manner, in order that, with every dollar that was paid, might 
be mingled some portion of exasperated feeling against the object for 
which it was to be applied, and the people who were to receive it ; and 
when the money was thus extorted from the Mexican people, it was 
diverted from its appropriate object, and either went into the general 
mass of public expenditures, or contributed to fill the pockets of the 
unprincipled men who administered her finances. 

It is the government, the executive of Mexico, which has been faith- 
less to its engagements. No impediment has been interposed by the 
omission of the Legislature to furnish all the means required. It is the 
same department of the government which negotiated and signed these 
treaties, which has, for more than a twelvemonth, failed to pay according 
to contract, and to comply with their solemn engagements to make pro- 
vision for the unadjusted claims. The Texas movement is a mere pre- 
text for this flagrant violation of duty by Mexico. Her perfidy and bad 
faith are of earlier date than any complaint on her part, growing out of 
Texas concerns. During the entire administrations of General Jackson 
and Mr. Van Buren,her conduct was constantly denounced by our func- 
tionaries, both at home and in Mexico, as faithless, and in equal defiance 
of national law and of treaty stipulations. 

These views are now thus briefly but distinctly presented, because 
there seems to have been the most extraordinary and inexcusable igno- 
rance manifested on the subject, even by distinguished members of Con- 
gress. In the course of our numbers, we shall probably avail ourselves 
of the opportunity to throw some light upon this part of the case, and 
to exhibit the character of the outrages upon our citizens, in which the 
subsisting claims originated, and the language in w^hich they have been 
denounced by every American functionary who ever had occasion to 
speak of them. 



III. 

Returning from the brief digression into which we had been led in 
contrasting the character and conduct of the governments of France and 
Mexico, in reference to their treaty engagements, let us now advert to the 
course pursued by the United vStates under circumstances so strikingly 
analogous to those in which we now find ourselves placed. 

In his message to Congress of December 7, 1835, President Jackson 



41 

presents a distinct and full narrative of the whole action cf the two 
governments prior and subsequent to the signature of the treaty of July 
4, 1831. Having shown that France was clearly in the wrong in placing 
the construction she had done upon his former communication to Congress 
in w4iich she thought she discovered insinuations of bad faith, accom- 
panied by what she understood as amounting to a menace, he stated that 
he had caused "our charge d'affaires at Paris to be instructed to ask for 
the final determination of the French government ; and, in the event of 
their refusal to pay the instalments now due, without further explana- 
tions to return to the United States." 

This demand was to be made on France by our diplomatic agent at 
that court, after and notwithstanding that the diplomatic intercourse 
between the two nations had already been closed. That suspension did 
not, in the judgment of President Jackson or his cabinet, interpose any 
obstacle to the call upon that government to fulfil its treaty stipulations. 
On the other hand, it was regarded as a step which our interest and our 
rights imperatively required. Nor was this act of the Executive con- 
demned or Censured by any portion of the American people. ^ 

In making this demand on France, no apology or explanation was 
tendered to soothe the wounded feelings of that proud and gallant nation. 
On that point, the President thought he had already offered every ex- 
planation " which could reasonably be asked or honorably given." He 
thought he could not do more " without national degradation ;'' and he 
emphatically adds : " 1 hope it is unnecessary for me to say that such a 
sacrifice will not be made through any agency of mine. The honor of 
my country shall never be stained by an apology from me for the state- 
ment of truth and the performance of duty ; nor can I give any explana- 
tion of my official acts, except such as is due to integrity and justice and 
consistent with the principles on which our institutions have been 
framed." 

In reference to the complaint which Mexico has made of the pro- 
ceedings of our government in relation to Texas, if that government had 
thought proper to make it the subject of diplomatic discussion, doubtless 
the Executive w^ould frankly and courteously have met the question, 
and exhibited the grounds upon which it thought these proceedings stood 
vindicated from every just cause of reproach. The whole matter would 
have been discussed in a way soothing to the pride of Mexico, and every 
sacrifice which could with propriety be yielded, would have been made 
to her feelings. But the American government could not, and cannot, 
admit that her conduct has been illegal, or in violation of any right of 
Mexico. We can neither retract what has been done, nor apologize for 



42 

it. Mexico has denounced the measure in the most offensive terms and 
the most opprobrious language ; and this government would be warranted, 
by every principle which regulates the intercourse between nations, in 
demanding and exacting a withdrawal of these expressions before she 
would condescend to furnish any explanation to Mexico, or to state the 
grounds upon which she rests for her justification. . 

But none of these considerations dispense with the propriety of making 
a formal and peremptory demand upon Mexico, for the immediate pay- 
ment of all the unpaid instalments of the sums already awarded, and tKe 
adoption of prompt measures for the liquidation and satisfaction of out- 
standing claims. 

The language of Mr. Livingston, in his communication with the Duke 
de Broglie of the 25th April, 1825, exhibits the views then taken by the 
American government of its rights and obligations. ^' A negotiation 
entered into for procuring pecuniary compensation to individuals, involved 
no positive obligation on their government to prosecute it to extremities. 
A solemn treaty, ratified by the constitutional organs of the two powers, 
changed the private into a public right. The government acquires by it 
a perfect right to insist on its stipulations. All doubts as to their justice 
seem now to have been removed, and every objection to the payment of 
a debt acknowledged to be just, will be severely scrutinized by the 
impartial world." 

In his message of Januar}'' 15, 1836, President Jackson again adverts 
to the subject. He observes : " It will be seen that France requires, as 
a condition precedent to the execution of a treaty unconditionally ratified, 
and to the payment of a debt acknowledged by all the branches of her 
government to be due, that certain explanations shall be made, of which 
she dictates the terms. These terms are such as that government has 
already been officially informed cannot be complied with ; and, if per- 
sisted in, they must be considered as a deliberate refusal on the part of 
France to fulfil engagements binding by the law of nations and h d 
sacred by the whole civilized world." He submits to Congress to de- 
termine upon the ulterior measures to be pursued. " It is time," he 
says, •' that legislative action should be brought to sustain executive ex- 
ertion in such measures as the case requires" — suggesting, -as an im- 
mediate step, the " prohibiting the introduction of French products and 
the entry of French vessels into our ports," " as a proper preliminary 
step to stronger measures, should their adoption be rendered necessary 
by subsequent events." 

The subject was taken under consideration by the Committee on 
Foreign Relations in tlie Senate, Mhicli, by its chairman, Mr Clay, made 



43 

an elaborate report on the case. The authority of this gentleman will 
doubtless have its weight with a certain portion of the people of this 
country ; and it will be found that, so far as regards the original duty of 
the government to press to a satisfactory result the claims of its citizens 
for injuries sustained by them by the aggressions of a foreign power, the 
"perfect obligation" of the treaty " after its mutual ratification," and the 
right to insist upon the fulfilment of its stipulations, this report fully 
sustains the views and opinions of the President. The language in which 
Mr. Clay conveys his sentiments on these topics deserves to be remem- 
bered and weighed by those who are so much disposed to create an im- 
pression that our own government can scarcely be right, or a foreign one 
wrong, in the conduct of their relations. 

On the first of the points alluded to, after characterizing the measures 
of France in which these claims had their origin, as having '' prostrated 
the clearest principles of public law, and violated the most solemn en- 
gagements consecrated by pledges of public faith," he says : " whilst, 
however, the government of the United States felt itself restrained, by 
prudential considerations, to abstain from an appeal to arms at that period 
against France," which he had shown would have been perfectly justifi- 
able under the " circumstances," it resolved never to acquiesce in the in- 
justice which citizens of the United States had experienced at the hands 
of France ; but unremittingly to persevere in demanding the indemnity 
to which they were justly entitled." " It was due to ancient relations 
with France, to the interest of the two countries, and to the nature or 
the case, since the injuries were not resented when they were fresh, that 
redress should he first sought by friendly negotiations." 

On the last topic he thus expresses himself: " The President justly 
remarks, that the idea of acquiescing in the refusal of the execution of 
the treaty will not for a moment be entertained by any branch of the 
American government. The United States ean never abandon the pur- 
suit of claims founded on the most aggravated wrongs. And if, contrary 
to all just expectations, France should persist in the non-fulfilment of 
the treaty, when negotiations shall be completely exhausted, it will then 
become the bounden and painful duty of the United States to consider 
what measures are called for, on the occasion, by their honor, th ir in- 
terests, and the justice due to their injured citizen?." 

The only material point on which the committee differed in opinion 

with the President, was upon the question whether the period had arrived 

when the United States were called upon to take into their own hands 

the redress of the injuries of which they complained. The committee 

_ consider that the good faith manifested by the head of the French govern- 



44 

ment, the anxious desire which it avowed faithfully to execute the treaty, 
the circumstances by which it had been baffled in its efforts, and the 
prospect that all our objects were likely to be speedily accomplished 
by the exercise of a little more forbearance, justify them in coming to 
the conclusion that the United States " should await the result of the 
renewed exertions of the French King and his cabinet to secure the 
financial means to execute the treaty." Whether the time has not 
arrived for this government to make a final and peremptory demand of 
Mexico to fulfil her engagements, is now the question which the Ex- 
ecutive must decide. 



No. IV. 

So great a lenojth of time has intervened since the commencement of 
our controversies with Mexico, that the origin and character of these 
difficulties seem almost to have passed into oblivion. Since that period, 
a new generation has come upon the stage. The statesmen who then 
predominated in the councils of the nation, no longer exercise a sway 
in the public councils. The present fills the largest share in general 
estimation ; and when the view is abstracted or diverted from it, it is 
rather the future than the past that engrosses our attention. In addi- 
tion to this, it cannot be disguised that the tone and temper of political 
partisanship exercises a powerful influence in giving a color and a direc- 
tion to the speculations even of the ablest and most patriotic of the con- 
ductors of the press, in the discussions even of questions involving the 
foreign relations of the country. 

Under these circumstances, it is perhaps not to be wondered at that 
the real history of our intercourse with Mexico should be forgotten, or 
the real merits of the questions which have arisen between the two na- 
tions should be misapprehended. Ignorance, notwithstanding all the 
facilities for obtaining accurate knowledge, might perhaps be excused ; 
but misrepresentation, especially when calculated to cast odium upon 
our own country, and to furnish justification for the conduct of a foreign 
power, admits of no palliation. When the facts are unknown, or have 
faded from the memory, silence would be the commendable course ; but 
nothing can oxtcmuate the entire perversion of truth which has been 
so frequently manifested by those who have written most copiously, and 
declaimed most loudly, on this topic. 

One of the most lamentable consequences resulting from this course 



45 

has been, that a very large and intelligent portion of the American peo- 
ple are at this time in a state of deplorable ignorance as to the real merits 
of the disputes in which we are involved with a foreign power. By 
many, Mexico has been regarded as occupying too unimportant a posi- 
tion amono- nations to engross much of their attention. No sufficient 
motive has been found in the relative position and strength of the parties 
to lead to the supposition that she would wantonly, and without pro- 
vocation, perpetrate outrages upon her powerful neighbor, or justly 
incur her resentment. The events which have transpired from time 
to time have failed to attract observation, or were not deemed worthy 
of remembrance; and it is only when the measure of the annexation 
of Texas has been introduced among the topics of our domestic strifes, 
and employed to swell the notes of party discord, that our relations 
with Mexico have attracted any considerable share of public at- 
tention. 

It is not, however, under such circumstances, that questions of this 
kind can usually be viewed with that calmness and deliberation, that 
fairness and fullness, which can alone lead to just conclusions or direct the 
judgment with the greatest accuracy. 

We know not to what else than the foregoing and other analogous 
causes, can be attributed the egregious misapprehensions wdiich have 
existed, and do exist upon this subject ; and that it has happened that, 
with all the lights which our public archives shed upon it, and the most 
incontrovertible proofs which history furnishes, Mexico has been held 
up in our legislative halls, in the most deliberately prepared public 
documents, and in the columns of many of our leading journals, as an in- 
nocent and unoffending party — as a nation which has conducted herself, 
in her intercourse with foreign nations, w4th more than Castilian scrupu- 
lousness — as pure in her administration of justice towards the citizens 
and subjects of other governments — as faithful in her observance of trea- 
ties — and as having afforded no other cause or motive for hostility, on 
the part of other nations, than her possession of rich and fertile provin- 
ces, which have stimulated their cupidity, and mines whose w^ealth has 
excited their sordid avarice. On the more immediate subject of Texas, 
her claims to that country, though utterly at war with every principle 
wh'ch lies at the foundation of our own institutions, has been treated as 
if it were perfect and unquestionable ; her course of policy towards it, 
as warranted by public law and the principle of natural justice, and her 
right to persist in waging a war to subject it to her sway, as admitting 
of the most perfect justification. On the other hand, the measures pro- 
posed by the United States, in her efforts to produce a pacification be- 



46 

tween these contending parties, and more recentl}'" of annexing Texas 
to ouf own Republic, have been, in the same quarters, stigmatized as a 
piratical robbery, attempted to be perpetrated upon an unoffending 
neighbor in equal violation of the principles of public law and the most 
solemn stipulations of treaties. 

To those who have investigated this subject fairly and impartially, 
who have traced the entire history of Mexico since she threw off the 
Spanish yoke, it would be a matter of superogation to assert, and to ad- 
duce testimony to support the assertion, that nothing can be more 
essentially and fundamentally, in general and in detail, more false and 
groundless than the allegations to which we have adverted. De Toque- 
ville has remarked, that all the history of the United States is com- 
prised in our newspapers ; and it is certain, and w^e congratulate our 
country upon the fact, that, w^ith a free and independent press, with no 
shackles imposed upon the expression of opinion, and with such a me- 
dium of communication offered to every man who is disposed to trans- 
mit his views to the sober judgment of the people, an opportunity is 
always open to enlighten the public mind upon points on which its 
judgment must ev^entually decide. Through this medium, when error 
has been committed, it may be rectified. The time has arrived when 
this public opinion should be disabused upon those matters vitally af- 
fecting the honor of the nation — when the errors which have been so 
widely disseminated should be corrected. Not only have thousands of 
our countrymen been led (most unjustly, as we think) to condemn our 
government for its conduct, but the most unjust and erroneous ideas 
have been communicated to the public mind of Europe. Representa- 
tions have been made, wholly unmerited, that the character of our 
people and the tendency of our institutions are grasping and rapa- 
cious. 

On these points it is the duty of every American to contribute his 
exertions to enlighten the public judgment. In our estimation, the 
honor and integrity of our government, the disposition of the American 
people, and the character of our institutions, have been all and equally 
dishonored and libelled by these aspersions. From the day that Mexico 
assumed her rank as an independent power, her conduct towards the 
United States, in an especial manner, has been marked by outrage, and 
a disregard to her own true interests and the rights of our citizens. 
Through all the successive administrations which have attained the su- 
premacy in her councils, each has vied with its predecessor in the num- 
ber and atrocity of its outrages. At first, they were regarded as merely 
accidental acts of " irregular and unjust proceedings ;" but so mild 



47 

•were our remonstrances, so conciliatory our request for ex-planations, 
so courteous our calls for redress, that they were passed by with open 
neglect, and scarcely suppressed contempt. Gradually they assumed 
the frequency of a confirmed habit, and the systematic regularity of a 
well-arranged policy. The reiterated acts of personal cruelty, of rapa- 
cious robbery, and of every modification of wrong, drew from every 
American functionary, -without distinction of party, the most indignant 
denunciations. Demands more or less peremptory were made for re- 
dress ; and in proportion to the energy with which our remonstrances 
were urged, and remuneration demanded, did the deportment of Mexico 
become more conciliatory and more submissive. These vascillations 
apparently exhausted our patience, and the American government was 
compelled distinctly to notify that of Mexico, that unless an arrange- 
ment should promptly be concluded, no alternative was left but to take 
the matter into our own hands, and to exact that measure of justice 
which the case demanded, and w^hich had been so long delayed. 
Nor was this contemptuous disregard of all the obligations of natural 
and national justic-e, and these flagrant violations of treaties, confined 
to the United States. En2;land suffered wrono;s and indio-nities of a 
similar character, which, however, were more promptly and vigor- 
ously redressed. France received like demonstrations of Mexican faith 
and honor, until she w-as compelled to vindicate her rights before the 
castle of San Juan de Ulloa, to exact satisfaction at the cannon's mouth, 
and to enforce submission to terms dictated by her admiral from the 
quarter-deck of his ship. 

During this period, the deportment of the United States exhibited the 
most marked contrast with that of Mexico. It has been stated (and, 
although not officially promulgated to the public, yet it rests upon hio-h 
authority) that France and England, indignant at the course of Mexico, 
proposed to our government to combine in enforcing upon Mexico a 
respect for the law of nations, and an observance of treaty stipulations ; 
which proposition was declined by the American administration. Be 
this as it may, the published correspondence shows that scarcely a word 
of complaint ever escaped a Mexican functionary against the o-overn- 
ment or people of the United States. In the few instances w^iich did 
occur, the cases were promptly met, and either distinctly disproved or 
satisfactorily explained. 

It is not our intention to leave these matters of such grave importance 
to rest upon our unsustained assertions. In our succeeding numbers, 
we shall go somewhat into detail, and fortify what has been said by the 
most abundant and conclusive proof, drawn from the most authentic 
sources. 



48 



No. V. 

We have already remarked that causes of complaint and sources of 
difficulty between the United States and Mexico were coeval with the 
declaration of independence by the latter power. A brief review of the 
history of that nation will furnish a suitable introduction to the more 
detailed and specific narrative into which we shall be led. 

During- the tremendous contest in the Peninsula, in which Spain re- 
sisted the efforts made by Bonaparte to impose, a member of his own 
family upon the Spanish throne, and to subjugate that ancient and 
haughty nation to the imperial sway, the most liberal aid was afforded by 
the American provinces to the mother country. It has been estimated 
that Mexico alone contributed, wnthin the brief period of a few years, 
more than ninety millions of dollars to aid in carrying on this conflict.* 
On the restoration of peace, however, the friends of liberty found cause 
to lament the severe disappointment they were doomed to experience. 
All the glorious hopes in which they had indulged were defeated ; all 
the promises which, in the period of danger and of trial had been so 
-liberally made, were forgotten. Despotism resumed all her authority, 
and condemned to the most ignominious punishments those who had 
mainly contributed to rescue their country in the hour of peril. The 
same disappointments contributed to rouse into a flame the sparks of 
discontent throughout the American colonies. They were remitted to 
the tender mercies of their old rulers — their industry repressed, their 
commerce interdicted, and the ancient colonial policy re-established in 
all its pristine vigor. The different provinces, hopeless of redress, suc- 
cessively dissolved their connection with the parent country, declared 
their independence, and asserted the right of self-government. With 
little concert among themselves, each part in accordance with its own 
view of policy ; and among others, the various contiguous provinces, of 
which Mexico was the chief, combined in the effort to throw off the 
galling yoke. 

The causes which induced this movement, the principles upon which 
the contest was to be waged, and, still more, the character of the politi- 
cal institutions which were established, attracted the sympathies of the 
friends of liberty throughout the civilized world. The close proximity 
of Mexico to the United States, and the facilities of communication 
which existed between the two countries, gave an ardor and a strength 
to this feeling of sympathy, which j)romised the most auspicious results. 

* Napier's Peninsular War. 



49 

When, in 1824, a new Constitution was formed, so striking an analogy 
existed between the general principles, and even the minute details 
which characterized it, and those which distinguished our own institu- 
tions, that it almost seemed as if every line of distinction and wall of 
separation were broken down and obstructed. The people of the United 
States regarded their Mexican neighbors with almost fraternal affection ; 
exulted in their successes ; mourned at their reverses, and hailed with 
exultation their final triumph, and the consummation of their struggle 
for independence. We rejoiced at the anticipation that these new 
republics, which had imitated our example in emancipating themselves 
from the oppressive yoke of colonial dependence, under the same cir- 
cumstances, and upon the same grounds which had governed us — who 
had laid, in their frame of government, the same broad platform of indi- 
vidual rights which lay at the foundation of our institutions — would be 
linked with us in bonds, and connected with us by ties and interests, 
more durable than had ever before subsisted between nations. 

So vehement were the feelings thus awakened, that all the energies of 
the Executive were demanded to keep us within those limits which our 
neutral relations imposed. Nothing, however, could restrain the demon- 
strations of private sympathy, or prevent our citizens from participating 
in the momentous struggle. Multitudes flocked to the new-raised 
standard of liberty, from the United States, from England, Ireland, 
France, and Italy, many of whom distinguished themselves in the service, 
both by sea and land.* Mexico opened her arms wide to receive all 
who would come to her from any part of the world. "f In this posture 
of her affairs, she offered every inducement to the emigration, and every 
facility to the naturalization, of foreigners. Perhaps no nation has ever 
adopted a more liberal policy than Mexico promulgated upon this subject. 
By a law passed in 1823, it was provided that " all foreigners who come 
to establish themselves within the empire shall be considered as natu- 
ralized, should they exercise any useful profession or industry, by which, 
at the end of three years, they have a capital to support themselves, 
and are married. Those who, with the foregoing qualifications, marry 
Mexicans, will acquire particular merit for the obtaining letters of citi- 
zenship." By another law, all the instruments of husbandry, machinery, 
and other utensils, that are introduced by the colonists for their use, are 
allowed to be imported free of duty, " as also merchandise introduced by 
each family, to the extent of two thousand dollars." 

Stimulated by all these circumstances, large numbers of foreigners, 
particularly citizens of the United States, emigrated to this inviting coun- 

* Mr. Webster to Mr. Thompson, July 8, 1842. f Ibid. 

4 



50 

try. They established themselves in every part of the dominions of the 
Republic, and occupied themselves in every department of industry. As 
merchants along the seaboard and in the cities, as agriculturists and 
manufacturers, they introduced, with no small amount of capital, skill, 
industry, habits of business, and skill in all these various avocations. 
Prosperity began to exhibit itself in every direction ; commerce, liber- 
ated from the restraints which had fettered its movements, began to 
expand, and the immense resources of the country were in a rapid state 
of progressive development. The trade with the United States rose to 
upward of nine millions of dollars annually, and largely contributed to 
the wealth and comfort of both nations. 

This prosperous and happy aspect of affairs speedily underwent a 
change. The bulk of the people of Mexico, trained under the debasing 
influences of a narrow and rigid despotism, imperfectly comprehended, 
and were wholly unable properly to appreciate, the fundamental prin- 
ciple of free government. Bigoted, and ruled by an ignorant yet crafty 
priesthood, they were taught to regard everything approaching to reli- 
gious toleration with antipathy and abhorrence. Accustomed to habits 
of indolence, and averse to either bodily or mental labor, they were little 
qualified to compete with the more energetic and enterprising strangers 
who had mingled among them. The characters of their rulers were 
little calculated to inspire respect ; and without any well-established 
principles of morality, wholly destitute of loyalty to law, disorder and 
anarchy everywhere appeared and triumphed. 

The combined operation of these causes soon began to manifest itself 
in the bitter hostility which was engendered towards the foreigners who 
had accepted their hospitable invitations, and confided in their assurances 
of protection and encouragement. The wealth which was gradually but 
rapidly accumulating under the productive efforts of exotic enterprise 
and industry, roused their jealousy and stimulated their cupidity. En- 
veloped in the gloomiest shades of ignorance, they abhorred the intel- 
lectual light which began to shine among them, and to make their " dark- 
ness visible." They were unable to perceive or to appreciate the public 
benefits which were to result from private prosperity and the accumu- 
lation of individual wealth. The government was in the hands of men 
who obtained power by the most nefarious means, and employed it to 
the most iniquitous purposes. Holding their authority by the most pre- 
carious tenure, and wholly unscrupulous in the exercise of it, they were 
under a sort of necessity to connive at the maladministration of their 
nominal subordinates and dependants, and to close their eyes and cars 
to all the complaints of abuse of power and venal administration of jus- 
tice. They opened a new career of cruelty and injustice. Beginning 



51 

with a few and remote instances of aggression and outrage, impunity in 
crime only encouraged them to adopt a more comprehensive and 
systematic plan of iniquity. American citizens were plundered, impris- 
oned, and murdered, without awakening sympathy or meeting with 
punishment. 

The government of the United States, meanwhile, listened to the recital 
of the outrages which from time to time reached them, if not with real 
incredulity, at least with apparent apathy ; sought apologies for miscon- 
duct when the facts could no longer be denied, in the disorganization of 
public affairs, and the lawlessness of individuals amid the embarrass- 
ments of political revolutions. They were unwilling to censure in too 
harsh terms the irregularities, as they were mildly called, which were 
charitably attributed to inexperience in the administration of govern- 
ment, and they forbore to exact immediate and ample reparation for 
wrongs, the existence of which could no longer be denied. 

This course of policy, and the consequences to which it led, will be 
more fully developed in our succeeding number. 



No. VI. 

In the prosecution of the suggestion with which our last number 
closed, it will perhaps be found most expedient and convenient to place 
in juxtaposition some of the passages, in which our most distinguished 
public functionaries have exhibited their views of the general conduct 
of Mexico in her relations with the United States, and then to produce, 
somewhat in detail, the facts and circumstances upon which those opi- 
nions were formed. In both of these branches of discussion, we feel 
ourselves encumbered with the mass of material which lies before 
us ; and being driven to make a selection from the cumbrous heap, 
we shall necessarily be forced to leave half the story of our wrongs 
untold. 

Although not the first in time, yet, from its comprehensive summary 
of the facts which had preceded and occasioned it, we shall commence 
our selection with the special message from President Jackson to Con- 
gress on the 6th February, 1837, 24th Congress, 2d session. House Docu- 
ment, No. 139. In this paper, the President informs Congress that he 
had been disappointed in the hope he had entertained of bringing our 
claims upon Mexico to an amicable adjustment by the exercise of great 
forbearance. He then proceeds : " Having in vain urged upon that gov- 



52 

eminent the justice of those claims, and my indisputable obligation to 
insist that there should be no further delay in the acknowledgment, if 
not in the redress, of the mjuries complained of, my duty requires that 
the whole subject should "be presented, as it now is, for the action of 
Congress, whose exclusive right it is to decide on the further measures 
of redress to be employed. The length of time since some of the inju- 
ries have been committed — the repeated and unavailing applications for 
redress — the wanton character of some of the outrages upon the property 
and persons of our citizens — upon the officers and flag of the United 
States — independeat of recent insults to this government and people by 
the late extraordinary Mexican minister, would justify, in the eyes of 
nations, immediate war. That remedy, however, should not be used by 
just and generous nations, confiding in their strength, for injuries com- 
mitted, if it can be honorably avoided ; and it has occurred to me, that, 
considering the present embarrassed condition of that country, we should 
act with both wisdom and moderation, by giving Mexico one more op- 
portunity to atone for the past before we take redress into our own 
hands. To avoid all misconception on the part of Mexico, as well as to 
protect our own national character from reproach, this opportunity should 
be given with the avowed design and full preparation to take immediate 
satisfaction, if it should not be obtained on a repetition of the demand 
for it." 

President Van Buren, in his message of December 5, 1S37, thus ad- 
verts again to the subject : " The aggravating circumstances connected 
with our claims upon Mexico, and a variety of events touching the honor 
and integrity of our government, led my predecessor to make, at the 
second session of the last Congress, a special recommendation of the 
course to be pursued to obtain a speedy and final satisfaction of the 
injuries complained of by this government and by our citizens. He 
recommended a final demand of redress, with a competent authority to 
the Executive to make reprisals, if that demand should be made in vain. 
From the proceedino;s of Congress on that recommendation, it appeared 
that the opinions of both Houses of the Legislature coincided with that 
of the Executive, that any mode of redress known to the law of nations 
might justifiably be used." 

After stating what had occurred in the interim, he observes : " I re- 
gret, therefore, the more deeply to have found, in the recent communi- 
cations of that government, so little reason to hope that any futm-e 
efforts of mine for the accomplishment of those desirable objects, would 
be successful. Although the larger number, and many of them aggra- 
vated cases of personal wrongs, have been now for years before the 
Mexican government, and some of the causes of national complaint, and 



53 

those of the most offensive character, admitted of immediate, simple, 
and satisfactory replies, it is only within a few days past that any specific 
communication in answer to our last demand, made five months ago, 
has been received from the Mexican minister. By the report of the 
Secretary of State, herewith presented, and the accompanying docu- 
ments, it will be seen, that for not one of our public complaints has satis- 
faction been given or offered ; that but one of the cases of personal 
wrong has been favorably considered ; and that but four cases of both 
descriptions, out of all those formally presented and earnestly pressed, 
have, as yet, been decided upon by the Mexican government." In con- 
cluding his remarks upon the subject, Mr. Van Buren, after drawing the 
attention of Congress to the demand which, under its sanction, had been 
made, and referring to the documents communicated to show with what 
little success, says : " On a careful and deliberate examination of their 
contents, and considering the spirit manifested by the Mexican govern- 
ment, it has become my painful duty to return the subject as it now 
stands to Congress, to whom it belongs to decide upon the time, the 
mode, and the measure of redress. "*" 

The report of the Secretary of State, accompanying this message, fur- 
nishes a more detailed narrative of the progress and state of the contro- 
versies between the two governments. The summary which he gives 
in the concluding part of this paper is sufficiently condensed and impres- 
sive to require a full quotation. " The relations of the United States 
and Mexico, as they now stand, are these ; The demand of the United 
States for justice for past injuries has been made in conformity with the 
treaty between the two nations ; but apparently no public complaint has 
been examined by the Mexican government, except the conduct of Mr. 
Gorostiza. The printing and distribution of his offensive pamphlet is 
approved by his government, as comfortable to what was required by its 
dignity and interests. 

" To the other demands of a public nature, which existed at the ad- 
journment of the last annual session of Congress, after five months' 
delay, no answer has been given. On three cases of private claims, pre- 
sented for final answer, answers have been given. The justice of two 
of them is denied, although one of them rests on a decree of the Mexi- 
can government. Satisfaction for the one admitted to be just, is not 
made. The Congress of Mexico, who have been considering the sub- 
ject for eight or ten years, will be invited to pass upon it when they 
meet. Since the last session of Congress, an embargo has been laid on 
American vessels in the ports of Mexico ; although raised, no satisfac- 
tion has been made or offered for the resulting injuries. Our merchant 

* 25th Congress, 2d session, House Doc. 3. 



54 

vessels have been captured for disregarding a pretended blockade of 
Texas ; vessels, and cargoes, secretly proceeded against in the Mexican 
tribunals, condemned and sold. The captains, crews, and passengers of 
the captured vessels, have been imprisoned and plundered of their pro- 
perty ; and after enduring insults and injuries have been released with- 
out remuneration or apology. For these acts no reparation has been 
promised, or explanations given, although satisfaction was, in general 
terms, demanded in July last. From these facts, a judgment may be 
formed of the value of the assurances that have been received from the 
Mexican government, and the probabihty of their being ever fulfilled." 
How far Mr. Forsyth's anticipations were justified by previous events, 
and to what extent they were verified by subsequent circumstances, will 
hereafter appear. 



No. VII. 

The messages of Presidents Jackson and Van Buren, with the mass 
of documents upon which their views were formed, were referred to the 
Committees of Foreign Relations of both Houses, and received from them 
full consideration. A copious abstract of some of the reports of these 
committees will show in what light the legislative department of the 
government regarded this subject. 

On the 19th of February, 1837, Mr. Buchanan, from the Senate 
Committee, submitted a report in which it is, among other things, 
said : 

'' From the documents submitted to the Committee, it appears that, 
ever since the revolution of 1822, which separated Mexico from Spain, 
and even for some years before, the United States have had repeated 
causes of just complaint against the Mexican authorities. From time 
to time, as these insults and injuries have occurred, demands for satis- 
faction and redress have been made by our successive public ministers 
at the city of Mexico, but almost all these demands have hitherto 
proved unavailing." 

* * * # * # * 

" It might have been expected that, after the date of the treaty of 
amity, commerce, and navigation concluded between the two Republics 
on th(; 5th April, 1831, these causes of complaint would have ceased 
to exist. That treaty so clearly defines the rights and duties of the 
repsectivc parties, that it seemed almost impossible to misunderstand or 
to mistake them. The committee, notwithstanding, regret to be com- 



55 

pelled to state that all the causes of complaint against Mexico, which 
have been specially noticed in the correspondence referred to them, hare 
occurred since the conclusion of this treaty." 

" If the government of the United States were to exact strict and 
prompt redress from Mexico, your committee might, with justice, 
recommend an immediate resort to war or reprisals." The committee 
then gives its " hearty assent to the sentiments contained in the Mes- 
sage of the President," and " suggests the propriety of pursuing the 
form required by the 34th article of the treaty with Mexico, in all the 
cases to which it may be applicable. This article provides that ' if (what 
indeed cannot be expected) any of the articles contained in the present 
treaty shall be violated or infracted in any manner whatever, it is stipu- 
lated that neither of the parties will order or authorize any acts of 
reprisal, or declare war against the other, on complaint of injuries or 
damages, until the said party considering itself offended, shall have first 
presented to the other a statement of such injuries or damages, verified 
by competent proofs, and demanded justice and satisfaction, and the 
same shall have been either refused or unreasonably delayed.' After 
such a demand, should prompt justice be refused by the Mexican gov- 
ernment, we may appeal to all nations, not only for the equity and 
moderation with which we have acted towards a sister Republic, but 
for the necessity which will then compel us to seek redress for our 
wrongs, either by actual war or by reprisals." 

On the 24th February, 1837, Mr. Howard, from the Committee on 
Foreign Relations of the House of Representatives, submitted a report 
on the same subject. It says, that " The history of the relations be- 
tween the United States and Mexico exhibits an unbroken succession 
of good feelings, and as far as the occasion permitted, of kind offices on 
the part of the American government following out in this, as in other 
respects, the disposition and wishes of the people. The first to recog- 
nize Mexico as an independent power, the government of the United 
States has been among the first in the unceasing manifestation of friend- 
ship to this adjacent North American government. 

^' At an early period of her struggle for independence, the ports of the 
United States were open to her flag, even at the hazard of incurring 
responsibility for this act of impartial neutrality. But the committee 
perceive with profound regret, that, on the part of Mexico, there has 
been a long train of injuries to the American citizens and insults to the 
national flag, for which redress, though often promised, has seldom been 
obtained. This omission has doubtless proceeded, in a great measure, 
from the unsettled condition of the Mexican government, the numerous 
and radical changes which have prevented a fixed policy from being 



56 

pursued in its foreign affairs. But the committee believe that it has 
also sprung, in part, from a knowledge of the form of our government, 
and the limited power of its executive branch." 

After corroborating this conclusion by referring to cases in which 
other powers under whose institutions the Executive could more 
promptly and efficiently assert the national honor and rights, had been 
more successful in obtaining redress for the injuries which they had 
sustained ; and that in our own case, when reparation for an insult was 
required by the commander of a naval force, assurance was given that 
the Mexican functionary who had perpetrated the outrage, had been 
removed from his post, and promises made that the subject should be 
investigated and the culpable parties punished, yet as soon as the squad- 
ron had departed from the Mexican shores, the displaced officer was 
recalled into service, and assigned to another command " where his hos- 
tile feelings might again endanger the security of American citizens or 
property." 

In a subsequent part of this report, the committee show that this 
reasonable anticipation was speedily realized, by the arrest and impris- 
onment of eight seamen attached to one of our public vessels ; the pre- 
vention of the American Consul from visiting them whilst sick and in 
prison, which is denounced as an act of unpardonable inhumanity ,; 
which proceedings, say the committee, " appear to have proceeded from 
the same officer whose fictitious punishment, but real promotion, had 
been offered as an atonement for a previous insult to the American 
flag." 

"Looking," say the committee, in continuation, "through the cata- 
logue of complaints which the United States have to make against 
Mexico on their own account, as the party whose dignity and honor are 
•assailed, the committee are unable to perceive any proof of a desire on 
the part of the Mexican government to repair injury or satisfy honor. 
The merchant vessels of the United States have been fired into, her 
citizens attacked, and even put to death, and her ships of war treated 
with disrespect, when paying a friendly visit to a port where they had a 
right to expect hospitality." In concluding the report, the committee 
observe, that " they fully concur with the President, that ample cause 
exists for taking redress into our own hands, and believe we should be 
justified in the opinion of other nations for taking such a step. But 
they arc willing to try the experiment of another demand, made in the 
most solemn form, upon the justice of the Mexican government, before 
any further proceedings are adopted. It is their opinion, that a diplo- 
matic functionary of the highest grade should be appointed to bear this 
last appeal, whose rank would indicate at once the importance of hi;* 



57 

mission and the respect in which the government to which he is accred- 
ited is held." 

We have shown in a preceding number, that the Executive acted 
upon the recommendation of Congress m making another effort to induce 
Mexico to recognise the obhgations of justice and of treaty stipulations, 
and that this experiment proved fruitless and unavailing. The subject 
again came under the consideration of Cong-ress at the instance of the 
Executive, and on the 7th July, 1S3S, the Committee on Foreign Rela- 
tions again submitted their views in the shape of a report. After reca- 
pitulating, in a brief but distinct narrative, the circumstances of the case 
up to the termination of the preceding Congress, the committee proceed 
" to review briefly what has since occurred." Reference is made to 
the report of the Secretary of State, already cited, for the mode m 
which this demand was made, and the facts which attended and followed 
it. A more extraordinary developement of insincerity and bad faith, of 
prevarication and duplicity, was, perhaps, never exhibited. Insults and 
injuries continue to occur ; reparation is delayed under the most frivo- 
lous pretexts ; the Mexican Executive is shown to give statements to 
its own Congress different from, and wholly irreconcilable with those 
made to our government, and its whole conduct is demonstrated to be 
marked by characteristics which, in private society, would debar the 
guilty party from_ farther connection with men of probity and honor. 

Mr. Cushing, a member of the committee, made a minority report, 
which dissents, in some respects, from the majority. He, however, 
" concurs in the opinion that the Mexican government, by a series of 
acts, part aggressive on the rights of individual citizens of the United 
States, and part immediately affecting the national dignity and honor, 
and by delay to make reparation in the premises, has given to the United 
States cause of resort to measures of public remedy, if other circum- 
stances did not render such a course at present impolitic and unjust on 
the part of this government." Mr. Cushing perceived, in "the pro- 
longed war of independence," and " in the civil anarchy which accom- 
panied and followed that war," a palliation of the irregularities which 
have marked the foreign relations and diplomatic intercourse of that Re- 
public. He perceived a further palliation " in events connected with 
the establishment of the independence of Texas." Mr. Cushing deems 
this, however, " no sufficient answer to the causes of complaint alleged 
by the United States," and the reasons he assigns for this opinion are 
peculiarly pertinent to the questions now in agitation between the two 
countries. The grounds taken are these : " because some of the inju- 
ries sustained by us date back anterior to the commencement of the civil 
war in Texas, and others of a later date are wholly independent of that 



58 

fact ; and because, whatever reason the Mexican Republic may have to " 
take umbrage at the conduct of the citizens or the government of the 
United States, in reference to that or any other matter, it surely behooves 
her to seek redress through negotiation, or other direct ways, sanctioned 
in the usage of nations, rather than by occasional acts of public or pri- 
vate resentment." 

These views are well deserving of a more enlarged discussion, have 
a powerful bearing upon the questions now in controversy between the 
two nations, and involve some of the most important questions in public 
and international law. Being at present limited to a simple narrative 
of the events which have transpired, and the views taken by those 
clothed with public authority, the discussion of these topics must unavoid- 
ably be deferred, and this number of our series shall conclude with the 
final paragraph of Mr. Cushing's minority report : 

" The undersigned at the same time declares that if, however the 
reverse shall hereafter appear, and it shall prove (contrary to his expec- 
tations) that the Mexican government, not content with having persisted 
in so many acts injurious to the United States, has added thereto the 
aggravation of procrastinating redress by insincere and perfidious pre- 
tences of accommodation, he shall consider it the right of the federal 
government to pursue, in that event, the most prompt and decided 
measures for amply vindicating the interest and honor of the United 
States." 



VIII. 

The energetic movements of the Executive, and the decided language 
of the two branches of the legislative department of the government, 
were calculated to rouse Mexico from her apathy, and produced a brief 
impression upon that government. She despatched a minister to the 
United States, disavowed the offensive conduct of her representative at 
Washington ; and negotiations were resumed for the purpose of adjusting 
the matter in controversy between the two powers. 

On the arrival of Mr. Martinez (the new envoy) in Washington, com- 
munications were opened between him and Mr. Forsyth, and the pro- 
ceedings will })e found at length in 25th Con. 3d sess. House doc. No. 252. 
On the 29th August, 1838, Mr. Martinez presented to Mr. Forsyth an 
" informal memorandum," containing a projet for the contemplated 
arrangement, consisting of eight articles. Of these, only one related to 
claims which " Mexico has brought, or may bring, against the United 



59 

States," proposing the submission of them to the decision of the com- 
missioners to whom the American claims were to be referred for adjudica- 
tion. This allusion to the claims of Mexico upon the United States, it 
will be perceived by reference to the document cited, was couched in 
the most general terms, and was unaccompanied by any specification of 
their nature, character, or extent. In the " informal memorandum pre- 
sented in reply by Mr. Forsyth" on the 31st August, the Secretary of 
State says : " We are not apprised of the existence of any claims of 
Mexico upon the United States." 

It is further to be remarked that, through the whole course of the 
correspondence between the representatives of the two governments, in 
the arrangement which, so far as regards the pecuniary claims of Ameri- 
can citizens upon Mexico, was agreed upon as early as the 3d September ; 
and in the convention itself which was signed by the respective parties 
on the 10th of September, not the slightest allusion is again made to any 
causes of complaint on the part of either the government or the citizens 
of Mexico against the government or citizens of the United States. 
This is a most pregnant circumstance. It cannot admit of question that, 
if such causes of complain! existed, they would have been urged with all 
the strength which could be given to them at such a period ; and it is 
calculated to awaken surprise, if, when Mexico was thus reluctantly 
yielding to the imperative demands upon her to make provision for the 
adjustment of the claims existing against her — when these claims of the 
American government for matters involving national honor were especi- 
ally excluded from this arrangement, and reserved for future and diplo- 
matic settlement — that she never breathed a whisper with regard to any 
counter claims, of the existence of which she had been apprised that 
we were, up to that moment, utterly ignorant, and which, therefore, if 
she supposed such to exist, it was her business, as well as interest, to 
state fully and distinctly. 

The date of this correspondence and convention — August and Sep- 
tember, 1838 — are important circumstances in the historical narrative in 
which we are at present employed. Up to this period the United States 
was wholly ignorant of any pretension of claim by Mexico for national 
wrongs or insults ; and although invited by this declaration to announce 
them, they were significantly silent. It is not merely the poet, but the 
lawyer and the statesman, who tell us there is a "silence that speaks." 
The convention which recognised the existence of claims of citizens of 
the United States upon the government of Mexico was signed on the 
10th day of September, 1838 ; and by the 12th article it was provided 
that the ratification should " be exchanged at Washington within five 
months from the signature, or sooner, if possible." It was duly ratified, 



60 

with the sanction of the Senate, by the Executive of the United States, 
and this fact communicated to the jMexicau authorities. The American 
Secretary of State was informed, by the Mexican minister \Yho conducted 
the negotiation, that he beheved the President of the Mexican Repubhc 
" had full power to ratify the instrument without a reference of it to the 
Legislature."* Every facility had been afforded by the authorities of the 
United States to transmit this convention to Mexico, as appears by the 
letter of acknowledgement of these kind offices by Mr. Martinez, in his 
letter of September 26, 183S ; and, in consequence of these aids, it 
arrived in Mexico in due time ; our representative was assured that it 
would be laid before the new Congress for its ratification.! But, after 
requesting again the assistance of an American man-of-war, to convey 
the ratification to the United States, the Mexican Secretary, in reply to 
an offer to furnish him with the facility he requested, informed the 
American consul that " a difficulty had presented itself against the 
ratification, namely : that the King of Prussia had refused to act as 
umpire in the differences that might be referred to him, growing out of 
the convention." It is manifest that, had such been the fact, it furnished 
not the slightest or least plausible pretence for the act which it was 
adduced to justify. The nomination of an umpire was by no means 
an essential article of the arrangement : that might have been, as con- 
venience dictated, postponed. It was deeply important, however, that 
the fundamental provisions of the convention, which had been deliber- 
ately agreed upon, should be conclusively adjusted. 

But, unfortunately, there exist strong reasons to believe that there 
was no foundation in truth for the assertion. As late as February II, 
1839, in communicating to Mr. Forsyth the fact that the ratification by 
his government had not been transmitted to him, the Mexican minister 
indicated his ignorance of such a fact, and explicitly says, " that he is 
well persuaded that the delay in the receipt of this document proceeds 
wholly from the deplorable condition in which things are well known to 
be in his unfortunate country." The only evidence of the refusal of 
the King of Prussia to execute the functions of umpire, for which office 
he had been selected by the parties, is contained in two letters from Mr. 
Jones to Mr. Forsyth, under date of the 10th January, 1839, and of the 
19th of the same month, in which he says that it had been mentioned 
by the Mexican minister. It was then designated by Mr. Jones as a 
"frivolous obstacle ;" and Mr. Tornel was informed that it could not 
constitute " any solid ground for the non-ratification," as it might '^ easily 
be obviated by inserting a clause for the substitution of another umpire.') 

* Mr. Forsyth's Report to the President, February 27, 1839. 
t Mr. Jones to Mr. Forsyth, December 31, 1S38. 



61 

ISIr. Tornel farther said, " that he and the President (Bustamenta) had 
written on the subject to the president of the United States and Mr. 
Forsyth." As, however^ no such letters were Gonimunicated to Con- 
gress, it is to be inferred diat none such were ever received. 

In this state of affairs, the subject was again taken into consideration 
by the Committee on Foreign Relations of the house of Representatives. 
In the report from this committee, submitted on the 2d of INIarch, 1S39, 
they consider the reasons assigned by IMexico for her omission " as 
altogether insufficient and unsatisfactory;" and, in reference to that 
excuse which relates to the refusal of the King of Prussia to act, they 
add, " but as no direct information of this description has reached the 
United States, the committee think some error must have occurred, as 
the good understandino; between Prussia and the United States would, in 
all probability, have induced a communication to the United States as 
well as Mexico, if the arbitration had been declined," 

Negotiations were, however, resumed ; and, on the 11th of April, 
1839, another convention was signed by the ministers of the two powers, 
which, in its preamble, places the non-ratification of the convention of 
the preceding September " on the alleged ground that the consent of his 
Majesty, the King of Prussia, to provide an arbitrator to act in the case 
provided by said convention could not be obtained." The 7th article of 
this convention, then, in the same terms as the preceding, provides for 
the reference of the points upon which the board may differ, to the 
umpirage of the individual who may be designated by the King of 
Prussia to perform this office. 

This convention, signed on the 11th of April, 1839, provided that it 
should be ratified, and that the ratifications should " be exchanged within 
twelve months from the signature, or sooner, if possible." Again, the 
United States acted with promptness and good faith, and ratified the 
arrangements ; while the government of Mexico, pursuing its accustomed 
dilatory and procrastinating policy, postponed its action to so late a day, 
that the ratifications were only exchanged on the 8th of April, 1840 — 
leaving but three days of the twelve months, limited for that act, un- 
expired. 

The proceedings which followed the consummation of this convention 
win form the next topic for our consideration. 



62 



iS'o. IX. 

The convention between the United States and Mexico, signed on the 
4th of April, 1S39, the ratifications of which were exchanged on the 8th 
April, 1S40, opens a new chapter in the history of the relations between 
the two goyernments. This chapter, though furnishing new details and 
presenting new evidences of wrong and contumely, yet exhibits the same 
general characteristics which have marked every part of the conduct of 
Mexico. 

On the 10th of July, 1S41, the President, in compliance with a reso- 
lution of the Senate, transmitted to that body a message, conveying the 
information in his possession as to the progress and actual condition of 
the commission then in session under this convention. It covers a report 
of the American members of the board to the Secretary of State, under 
date of the 26th May, 1841. This report, made by Gov. Marcy and 
Judge Rowan, the commissioners on the part of the United States, dis- 
closes many facts which it is important to notice rn the discussion we 
have undertaken. 

The third article of the convention provided, that the board should 
meet in the city of Washington within three months after the exchange 
of ratifications, and, within eighteen months from the time of its meet- 
ing, should terminate its duties. The Secretary of State was required 
to give notice of the time of meeting in two or more newspapers. The 
day appointed for the meeting was the Sth of July, 1840. The Ameri- 
can members having met, and having waited until the 25th of that month, 
without either they or the Department of State receiving any information 
as to the Mexican members, or when they were expected to arrive, they 
adjourned till the 17th August. In the meantime, the Mexican gentle- 
men had arrived ; the board met ; and a week was consumed in over- 
coming the preliminary difficulties started by these members of the 
board. Another obstacle was immediately after presented from the 
same quarter, deeply involving the interests of the claimants and the 
fundamental principles of justice. The Mexican commissioners " held 
that the two governments were to be regarded as the litigant parties be- 
fore the board, and denied to the claimants all access to it, in person or 
by their agents, and even the right to present, or transmit directly to it 
any paper, document, or written proofs ; and they consequently objected 
to, and voted against every rule or regulation that proposed to give to, or 
recognize in, the claimants, the right to appear before the board, or to 



63 

address any communication to it. These views the undersigned consid- 
ered to be erroneous, and they believed, that the adoption of them would 
be very prejudicial, if not entirely destructive, to the interests of the 
complainants." 

The discussion of the matter continued from the organization of the 
board in August, until the seventh of October following, when all pros- 
pects of an agreement being abandoned, and the question not being one 
which the convention permitted to be referred to the umpire, the Ameri- 
can commissioners yielded, as the only means of preventing the object 
of the board being frustrated. In consequence of these delays, the 23d 
of December passed without the parties, whose claims were to be inves- 
tigated and adjudged, having received any notification of the manner in 
which their cases were to be presented, or the proceedings of the board 
to be conducted. More than four months, of the eighteen limited for the 
existence of the board, were thus wasted without making the smallest 
progress in the business intrusted to it. 

In consequence of a vacancy created by the resignation of Judge 
Rowan as a member of the board. Judge H. M. Breckenridge was ap- 
pointed to supply the vacancy ; and on the 23d April, 1S42, having 
closed their sessions, they transmitted to the State Department a report 
of their proceedings. This report exhibits, in part, the means employed 
by the Mexican functionaries to delay the decision of causes, to pervert 
the ends of Justice, and the audacity with which they put at defiance 
even the semblance of impartiality and fairness. The board expired by 
the terms of the convention which created it, without disposing of the 
•business for the adjustment of which it had been organized, on the 25th 
February, 1842. Messrs. Marcy and Breckenridge expressly declare 
that " to the long delay, in the first place, in determining upon any mode 
whatever by which the business could be conducted, and then to the in- 
direct and circuitous manner to which the claimants were eventunlly 
obliged to resort for the purpose of getting their papers and documents 
before the commissioners, is, in our opinion, to be ascribed, in some 
measure, the failure of the commission to examine all the cases before 
it, and to piesent them to the umpire in season for his decision thereon. 

Many of the cases, presented to the board in sufficient time to have been 
fully acted upon, were suspended ; some of them at the instance of our 
Mexican associates, for the purpose of getting documents from Mexico.-' 
" In one important case, the requisitions for documents were not for- 
warded by the Mexican government, and for want of them, being such 
as we believed Mexico was bound, under the convention, to furnish, the 
case was not submitted to the umpire, and in our opinion could not 



64 

have been, without jeoparding the right of the parties interested in the 
claim." 

In consequence of the delays and embarrassments thus interposed, a 
large majority of the claims were not finally passed upon by the board, 
and the unfortunate claimants, whose cases were thus left undecided, 
have already waited another three years, without any effective steps 
beino- taken to brino; their affairs to settlement. 

Two circumstances are adverted to by the American commissioners, 
which peculiarly merit notice, as illustrative of the principles w-hich 
Mexico brought into this investigation, and the high-handed course with 
which her officers conducted themselves. The first that wall be alluded 
to, though more particularly associated with an individual case, yet, in 
some of the points most deserving of reprobation, was by no means an 
insulated one. 

An American citizen, who had been a resident merchant in Mexico 
for several years, presented a claim upon Mexico to a large amount. 
To a considerable extent, the claim was for an indemnity for losses alleged 
to have been sustained by the illegal acts of several judicial and minis- 
terial functionaries, by the perversion of authority by the officers of jus- 
tice, and by spoliations of property, under color of law, but in manifest 
violation of it. Such a claim necessarily involved a critical and exten- 
sive examination into the proceedings of the courts and officers w^hose 
acts were complained of. By the provisions of the convention under 
which the board was organized, the Mexican government stipulated to 
furnish such documents and proofs as might be in her possession, which 
might be necessary to substantiate the claims against her. The neces- 
sary requisition was prepared and sent, and duly transmitted to Mexico, 
where, notwithstanding all the delays interposed by the IMexican com- 
missioners, it was received nine months before the board was to conclude 
its labors. The documents called for were minutely described, and the 
particular public offices where they were to be found precisely designa- 
ted. They were twenty-one in number. Of these, no notice whatever 
was taken of twelve ; and papers purporting to be those described in the 
remaining nine specifications, when they came to be examined, were 
oiscovered to be, to a great extent, both false and imperfect. The Ameri- 
can commissioners specified five of these documents, thus stamped with 
discredit on their face, and pointed out in detail the proofs of their falsifi- 
cation. They draw, from the circumstances which they detail, these 
three conclusions : 

" 1st. That Mexico has wholly omitted to send even a moiety of the 
documents which she has bound herself by the convention to furnish ; 



65 

and that no reason for this non-compliance with the terms of that con- 
vention are given by her to the board. 

2d. That several of the documents actually sent are, on the face of 
them, not full records, but refer to other acts which ought to appear in 
the same, but do not. 

3d. That there are discrepancies between documtnts thus trans- 
mitted from Mexico, and others equally authenticated, which, without 
explanation, mutually destroy each other's credit." 

In consequence of these acts of omission to comply with a solemn 
treaty stipulation, and the fraud attempted to be perpetrated by Mexican 
functionaries, in imposing surreptitious papers upon the board of com- 
missioners, the case was left undetermined. Thus, and by such means, 
a claim,, estimated by the American commissioners at upwards of $690,- 
000, and so stated by them in their official report, with all the accumu- 
lation of interest from February, 1S42, has been thus far lost to an Ame- 
rican citizen, stricken down from affluence to penury by the atrocious 
acts of the Mexican government and functionaries. Nor did the outrage 
end here. As has been stated, the American commissioners, in a paper, 
understood to have been drawn up by Judge I\Iarcy, the senior member 
of the American commission, and eminent for his judicial accomplish- 
ments and experience, designated five particular documents, as exhibiting 
on their face, defects and contradictions. At the termination of the sit- 
tings of the board, the Mexican commissioners, against the earnest re- 
monstrances of their American associates, laid hands on these spurious 
papers, containing on their face the proof of the frauds thus attempted 
to be perpetrated by the Mexican authorities, who had transmitted them 
as genuine ; and, notwithstanding the distinct opposition made by IMr. 
Webster, then Secretary of State, removed them beyond the control of 
the government of the United States. Xot satisfied with thus bearding 
our own government in the heart of its own capital, they intimate, in re- 
ply to Mr. Webster's remonstrance against this conduct, that they have 
abstracted or removed only six of the papers, specifying the same five 
which Governor Marcy had condemned, and assign as their justification, 
that they were original expedlentes (records) from courts of ^Mexico, 
which, on account of their character, ought to remain in their hands. It 
may not be unimportant to add, that these are not the only documents 
thus abstracted, and that not one of the five either was, or purported 
to be, an original expediente ; nor was an original asked for in the requi- 
sition.* 

The comments of !Mr. Upshur, on this matter, in his despatch to ]\Ir 
Thompson, of July 25, lS43,t shows the views taken of these acts of 

*2Ttti Con, 2d Session, Senate Doc. 320. t23th Con. 2d Session. House Doc. 158 

5 



66 

high dignitaries of Mexico by the American government. " The con- 
duct of Mexico, as it seems to me, had made it the duty of the United 
States to insist on prompt and specific relief, so far as this case is con- 
cerned. She has rendered herself liable to the charge of having broken 
her faith, and disregarded her obligations. She has not complied with 
a single stipulation of the convention of 1S39. She has not even joro- 
fessed to have produced a large number, nearly half (more than half) of 
the documents called for; and niany of those which she did produce, 
Were either imperfect, or grossly falsified. The American commission- 
ers complained of this, but without redress ; and, to add to the injuries 
and contemtpuous conduct of the Mexican commissioners, they took 
back with them, against the consent and remonstrances of the American 
commissioners, and of the Secretary of State, all the falsified and imper- 
fect documents which they had submitted. All this will fully appear 
from the enclosed extracts from the proceedings of the board. It is quite 
evident that, so far as the claimant is concerned, he can have little hope 
of success before any new commission. He must necessarily rely upon 
the same evidence which he has heretofore applied for in vain ; and he 
must make his demand on the same government, which has heretofore 
treated the same demand with neglect and contempt. He can have no 
security whatever, that he will receive from a second commission a more 
just treatment than he received from the first. If he should be com- 
pelled to submit his claims de novo, and upon the same principles which 
governed the former imperfect and unfair consideration of it, there is no 
reason to hope for anything better, than a repetition of the same unjust 
treatment which he has heretofore received. 

" And how stands our government in relation to this matter ? We 
have undertaken to see justice done to our injured and complaining citi- 
zens. We have demanded justice of the Mexican government. We 
have entered into stipulations with that government, by which a fair and 
honorable adjustment of all these matters might be had. Mexico, by 
her own act, came under a new obligation. The debt which she owed 
to our citizens she guarantied by a solemn compact with our govern- 
ment. On our part, we have kept our faith ; while she has broken hers. 
This has changed the whole character of the question. Our government 
is now a party — not in interest, but in honor. We are bound to redress 
the wrong which has been done to one of our citizens ; and this not 
merely by the general obligation which rests upon every nation to pro- 
tect and defend its own people, but by the additional consideration that, 
having undertaken to do this, we are committed in honor not to give 
back. We must not permit Mexico to retreat from the agreement which 



67 

she has made with us, nor to excuse herself from the faithful perform- 
ance of it." 

"In bringing this subject before the Mexican government, it is neces- 
sary that you should use a strong and decided tone. Atonement should 
have been made long ago for the numerous and flagrant wrongs done by 
that power to citizens of tiiis country. Unnecessary delays must not be 
submitted to, nor will slight excuses be received. The honor of the 
government is pledged to our own people for the diligent and proper pro- 
secution of these claims. Mexico can no longer, consistently with her 
own honor, or the rights of our citizens, or what is due to this govern- 
ment, seek to delay the execution of what justice so plainly requires at 
her hands." 



In the preceding numbers, we have presented the history and charac- 
ter of the relations which have subsisted between the United States and 
Mexico, from the time the latter nation asserted her independence of 
Spain. Selecting, as our limited space required, only a few among the 
most prominent circumstances which indicated the disposition of the 
Mexican authorities, the character of their people, and the tendency of 
their institutions, sufficient evidence has been adduced to demonstrate 
that, at least, so far as respects the United States, their conduct has been 
marked by cruelty, faithlessness, and an utter disregard to all the obliga- 
tions which the laws of truth and honor impose. The most friendly 
advances have been returned by bitter resentments ; the solicitations of 
kindness repelled with insult and outrage ; fair dealing and adherence to 
truth have been equally lost sight of, in their diplomatic correspondence ; 
while no respect has been paid to the restraints w^hich humanity or 
justice imposes upon the actions of m^en and communities. In one of 
the most recent official documents, emanating from the government of the 
United States, upon the subject of these relations, the language of Mr. 
Webster will be found to corroborate the views taken by other distin- 
guished functionaries of this nation. In his despatch to ^Iv. Thompson 
of the Sth July, 1842, in commenting on a communication from Mr. de 
Bocanegra, Secretary of State and Foreign Relations of the government 
of Mexico, equally unprecedented and extraordinary in its contents and 
character, as in the mode of its transmission, Mr. Webster takes occasion 
to repel some groundless accusations preferred bv the Mexican Secre- 



68 

tary.* The United States, he says, " is wholly ignorant of any sacri- 
fices made by Mexico, in order to preserv'e peace, or of any occasion 
calling on its government to manifest uncommon forbearance. On the 
contrary, the government of the United States cannot but be of opinion 
that, if the history of the occurrences between the two governments, 
the state of things at this moment existing between them, be regarded, 
both the one and the other will demonstrate that it is the conduct of the 
government of the United States which has been marked in an especial 
manner by moderation and forbearance. Injuries and wrongs have been 
sustained by citizens of the United States, not inflicted by individual 
Mexicans, but by the authorities of the government ; for which injuries 
and wrongs, numerous as they are, and outrageous as is the character of 
some of them, and acknowledged as they are by Mexico herself, redress 
has been sought only by mild and peaceable means, and no indemnity 
asked but such as the strictest justice imperatively demanded. A desire 
not to disturb the peace and harmony of the two countries, has led the 
government of the United States to be content with the lowest measure 
of remuneration. Mexico herself must admit that, in all these transac- 
tions, the. conduct of the United States towards her has been signalized 
not by the infliction of injuries, but by the manifestation of a friendly 
feeling and a conciliatory spirit." In an address from Mr. Thompson to 
the diplomatic corps in Mexico, under date of June 6, 1842, he says : 
" Not only have we never done an act of an unfriendly character towards 
Mexico, but I confidently assert that, from the very moment of the ex- 
istence of the Republic, we have allowed to pass unimproved no oppor- 
tunity of doing Mexico an act of Idndness. I will not now enumerate 
the acts of that character, both to the government of Mexico and its 
citizens, public and private. If this government choose to forget them^ 
I will not recall them. Whilst such has been our course to Mexico, it 
is with pain I am forced to say, that the open violations of the rights of 
American citizens by the authorities of Mexico have been greater, for 
the last fifteen years, than those of all the governments of Christendom 
united ; and yet we have left the redress of all these multiplied and 
accumulated wrongs to friendly negotiation, without having even intimat- 
ed a disposition to resort to force." 

If the representations, which we have furnished of the conduct of 
Mexico, expressed and reiterated for a long series of years by functiona- 
ries of the American government, without distinction of party, be not 
grossl}^ exaggerated and overcharged, upon what possible ground can the 
allegations rest which have frequently been made within the last few 

• 27th Con. 2d Sess. House doc. 226. 



69 

months, that our sister Republic is an unoffending neighbor, scrupulously 
faithful in the maintenance of her faith and in the performance of her 
obligations, cautiously avoiding furnishing us with any cause of offence, 
and anxious to cultivate with us the most friendly relations, by the 
manifestation, on every occasion, of the kindest dispositions towards us. 
If, on the other hand, these representations do not overstep the bounds of 
truth, the inquiry naturally suggests itself, has Mexico, in her intercourse 
with other nations, exhibited the same characteristics, or have they re- 
ceived a different treatment at her hands ? If the citizens and govern- 
ment of the United States are the only parties who complain of the 
conduct of Mexico — if, in her deportment to the subjects of other nations, 
she gives no cause of offence, suspicions may arise that either our com- 
plaints are unfounded or exaggerated, or that some causes must exist for 
this asperity of feeling and violence of conduct towards us. 

Allusion was made in a previous number to the deportment of Mexico 
towards other nations ; and it may perhaps throw a new and distinct 
light upon the character of that government, if we devote some little 
time, to an authentic statement of the nature and character of her diffi- 
culties with France. We have before us an exposition of those difficul- 
ties in an official shape. The document to which we refer is the ultimor- 
tum of the Baron Deffandis, minister plenipotentiary of France, addressed 
to the Mexican government, and dated onboard the frigate L'Hermione, 
March 21, 1833. The copy which we have of this paper is a Spanish 
translation, published by the Mexican authorities in a supplement to the 
" Al Diario del Sobiano de Mejico" of the 31st March, 1838. From 
this document we ^ive the following extracts : 

" During the thirteen years which have transpired since regular and 
continued relations have been established between France and Mexico, 
a large number of the subjects of his Majesty, established in the territory 
of the Eepublic, have found themselves exposed to grave attacks upon 
their persons and their property. 

" The undersigned, minister plenipotentiary of France, will not stop to 
detail the particulars of these assaults ; which, by their atrocity, would, 
in the recital, necessarily communicate to this note a character of hostile 
severity, which he does not desire to give it. For this reason he will not 
particularize — 

" Either the assassination of Atenzingo, in 1833 — in which five. French- 
men, who enjoyed general esteem, and exercised an occupation useful to 
the community, were decapitated ; after which, they were tied to the tails 
of horses, and dragged (including a female) by persons known to the 
Mexicans, who performed this act at midday, vociferating death to stran- 
gers—an assassination which remains unpunished after a lapse of five 
years, under the pretext that the judicial forms of the country are slow 



70 

and complicated ; notwithstanding that, within this period, two French- 
men, who committed a murder at S. Luis Potosi, on the 21st October last, 
and shrouded the act in the most profound mystery, were arrested, tried, 
condemned, and finally executed on the 31st day of the same month, 
exactly ten days after perpetration of the crime : 

" Nor of the butchery (carniceria) at Tampico, in 1835, in which 
twenty-eight foreigners, among whom were two Frenchmen, made 
prisoners by Mexican troops, in an attack made by them on the territory 
of the Republic in favor of Texas, were murdered some days after, being 
shot down by musketry in a walled yard, in which they were enclosed, 
like wild beasts. For this act the Mexican government has never been 
able, although required by France two years since, lo show in virtue of 
what law, or in conformity with what judicial proceedings, these indivi- 
als were condemned and executed ; a butchery rendered more odious by 
the impunity extended to Mexican officers who were the associates of 
these strangers, and by the promotion to the rank of General, of Colonel 
Gregorio Gomez, he having presided at the council \vhich, to try the 
accused, limited his acts to the simple order of assassination : 

" Nor of the iniquitous and attrocious judgment pronounced by Senor 
Tomayo, one of the judges of the capital, who, during the last year, 
condemned to ten years' hard labor at Vera Cruz (in other words, a fright- 
ful death by prolonged suffering), a Frenchman, whom he desired to re- 
present as guilty of homicide, without proof, refusing to receive evi- 
dence of his innocence, in violation of all legal forms and of the sacred 
right of defending one's self against false accusations : 

" Nor of the recently attempted assassination, by Colonel Pardo, com- 
mandant of the city of Colima, in a public street, of a Frenchman who 
exercised the honorable profession of medicine, and who was a director 
and physician to the hospital in that city, for no other cause than that the 
Frenchman had refused to lend money to the colonel ; from which attempt 
the colonel escaped only by a kind of miracle, but covered with wounds. 
For these atrocious injuries he has not only been unable to obtain any 
redress, but has even been denied protection for the future from the civil 
and judicial authorities, and thus has been compelled to abandon the 
country and all the interests he held there. 

" The undersigned will not undertake at this time to enter into a detailed 
relation of many other outrages less execrable, but not less miquitous, 
which Frenchmen have been compelled to suffer in their persons and 
their property. Such a detail would extend this communication to a 
length wliich is the less neces.sary, after the voluminous correspondence 
which has taken place on the same subject between the French legation 
and the Mexican government. The undersigned will, therefore, content 
himself laying down three general categories, under which will naturally 
be arranged these less odious inquiries to which his countrymen have 
been subjected. 

" 1. The sacking and destruction of property, pending the disturbances 
of the country, \\ Inch have been done either by the populace or by the 



71 

belligerent parties ; as for example, the sacking of the Parian in Mexico, 
in Tehuantepec, in Oajaca, and in Orizava ; the mutiny in Mexico on 
account of the depreciation of the copper currency, &c. 

" 2. The violent collection of forced loans, in violation equally of all 
national rights and of subsisting treaties, and not less opposed to natural 
equity by the unjust partiality manifested in the apportionment. 

" 3. The denial of justice, judicial acts and decisions, equally illegal 
and iniquitous, of the administrative authorities, military and civil, as for 
example, the confiscation, contrary to the maxims of humanity and of the 
law, of the Republic, of the cargo of Captain Rives, Avho was Avrecked by 
a tempest on the coast of ]Mazaltan, involving the death of this Frenchman, 
which was brought about by the sufferings endured in five anxi jus years, 
uselessly expended, in imavailing efforts to obtain that repaz.'aaon which 
^vas unceasingly j)romised. In this affair, certain employees of the 
custom-house figured, who subsequently burned their records, and fled to 
avoid rendering an account to the government. 

" Closing, contrary to treaties and laws, tlie commercial establishment 
of Mr. Besson, in Bolanos, the imprisonment of this Frenchman by the 
local authorities, as a punishment for havmg invoked and obtained the 
impotent protection of the supreme government. In this case, an officer 
of the custom-house prominently figured, who was subsequently dis- 
missed for being concerned with a band of robbers, and for his o^vn 
defalcations." 

This list of outrages will be continued in oar next by farther extracts 
from this ultimatum of Baron Deffandis. 



Ko. XL 

* We resume the extracts from the French ultimatum, addressed to 
the Mexican government on the 21st of March, 1838, recapitulating the 
causes of complaint for which redress was demanded, viz : 

" The banishment and ruin of ^L Gallix in Tehuantepec, under pretexts 
Avhich were not stated, and probably not even hivented until long after 
the act was committed, and which were immediately ascertained to be 
both false and calumnious. In this transaction a judge viio had been 
already condemned by a superior tribunal for prevarication, was a promi- 
nent actor. 

" The persecution and ruin of Zvl. Darenton, in Tampico, by decisions 
subversive of the rights of nations, and of the legislation of the Republic. 
In this affair a judge who had been accused before the tribunals of Vera 
Cruz, of causing death by poisoning, and had evaded by flight the pro- 
ceedmgs directed against him, was conspicuous: 



72 

" The sequestration of the goods of ]Mr. Arbel, in Tarapico, at the mstance 
of a party who refused to let it be known who he was, which sentence of 
sequestration has continued for three years, in consequence of the illegal 
failure to provide in that department a tribunal of appeal : 

" The prolonged imprisonment and barbarous treatment of i\Ir. Le Dos 
by the instrumentality of judicial papers, which were forged and recog- 
nised as such by the superior judges. In this affair, officers of the army, 
who constituted the tribunal, figured as those guilty of these falsifi- 
cations." 

The reclamations continually pressed by the Minister of France against 
these various outrages have been as constantly repelled by the Mexican 
authorities. If France has been able to obtain occasiorally the ,<^uspen- 
sion, for a brief period, of these iniquitous proceedings against her sub- 
jects, it has more rarely been able to obtain a cessation of them, and 
never to procure any reparation for those that had been committed. The 
continuation during so long a period of such a state of things, can be 
explained and accounted for only by the continued good feeling on the 
part of France, and b}^ the change in the systemiS of negotiation success- 
fully established with her by the Mexican authorities. 

The first of these systems consisted in a recognition by Mexico of the 
justice of the complaints preferred by the French legation ; in expressing 
in stronger terms than even France herself employed, the indignation 
felt by Mexico for these outrages upon the subjects of his Majesty ; in 
palliating every case of wrong, by urging the limited advance which the 
country had made in civihsation, the civil dissentions, together with the 
errors and defects in the legislation, the imperfect organization of the 
administration, as well of the army as of the tribunals of justice, the 
inexperience of the public functionr.ries of all classes, &c. ; and finally, 
and above all, this system consisted in the promise of reparation, implor- 
ing, however, delay, in consequence of the deranged state of their 
finances, which entreaties the generous and friendly disposition of France 
would not permit her to refuse. 

The second system has had a more recent origin, and a more brief 
duration. It has had several bases in succession. 

1. To make these complaints the subjects of discussion, which promised 
to be never-ending from the unheard-of dilatoriness with which the Mexi- 
can ministry furnished their communications on the application of the 
principles of the universal rights of nations, which the French legation 
had cited to sustain its reclamations. 

2. When these discussions, and all the delays which Mexico could 
interpose were brought to a clo.se, by answering these references to the 
universal law of nations, by opposing to them the Mexican rules of law, 
and by repelling every description of complaint for the denial of justice, 



73 

illegal sentences, scandalous exactions of certain magistrates upon the 
sole reason that, under the Mexican Constitution, the judicial power was 
independent of the Executive, which had authority only to call into 
action the administration of justice, but none to direct or supervise 
whatever might be the causes of complaint against the judges, or what- 
ever might be the proofs by which they were sustained. 

3. To elude the objections urged against these novel doctrines by the 
most tritling and dilatory answers, or by a silence absolute and continu- 
ous, and conniving at the same time at the repetition of similar acts as 
those in which these complaints had originated. 

4. To stigmatize as false and calumnious the reclamations of the 
subjects of France against the different authorities of the Republic, 
without discussing either the acts or the proofs which established these 
outrages, and satisfying themselves with the pure and simple denial of 
the allegations by the parties inculpated. 

5. To indicate, at times, the intention of exciting against the French 
claimants fresh persecutions, for the purpose of stifling their complaints, 
or at least of abandoning them to the tender mercies of the very parties 
whose conduct gave rise to the reclamation. 

6. To denounce, without any discussion of the allegations themselves, 
or of the proofs by which they are sustained, as offences against the 
Mexican people and government, the complaints of the French legation 
on behalf of their fellow subjects, and, under this pretext, to employ 
language insulting to the legation, and sometimes even to its govern- 
ment. 

7. Finally^ and to complete this system of operation, to repulse in 
mass the reclamations of France and the principles upon which they 
rest, suggesting, on the other hand, the preposterous proposition of sub- 
mitting the entire subject to the arbitrament of a third power, as if the 
matter merely involved those ordinary questions of doctrine or of inte- 
rests upon which doubt might be entertained, and, on the contrar}", did 
not grow out of outrages upon the security of persons and of property, 
which can never be submitted to arbitration in conformity either with 
public or private right ; or as if the dignity and the obligations of France 
could ever permit it to submit to a third party, even as a matter of form, 
(for it is not possible to suppose there can be any diversity of opinion 
am.ong civilized nations upon such questions), to decide whether the 
spoliations, the violences, the assassinations of which her subjects have 
been the victims, are or are not entitled to ample remuneration. 

In this summary and som.ewhat abridged recapitulation of the outrages 
perpetrated upon the subjects of France in various parts of the jMexican 
territory, either originally prompted by individuals high in office under 



74 

the Mexican government, or subsequently sustained and protected by 
them, and in the various pretexts and subterfuges to which that govern- 
ment systematically resorted to evade the responsibility which the law 
of nations attached to such conduct, may be read a brief history of our 
intercourse with that country. The citizens of the United States who 
had placed themselves within the Mexican territory were far more 
numerous than those of any other nation ; they possessed a much 
greater amount of property to excite the rapacity of these freebooters ; 
and, finally, there was infinitely less promptitude and energy displayed 
by our functionaries in the investigation of the circumstances which ac- 
companied these wrongs, and in enforcing compensation, than were 
exhibited by the representative of any other power ; and, consequently, 
the list of our injuries is proportionally larger, and the atrocity of the 
crimes of which Americans have been the victims have been of a deeper 
shade than those set forth in the French ultimatum. Similar devices 
and pretexts were resorted to in our case, as in that of France : promises 
of redress as freely made, and as rarely fulfilled. Parties complaining 
were subjected to new and more reckless persecutions, the great bulk of 
American citizens driven from the country, and that commerce which 
had already reached the amount of nearly ten millions per annum, and 
which, under more auspicious circumstances, would rapidly have in- 
creased, to the mutual advantage of both nations, rapidly feirto- about 
half a million. 

We shall next indicate the course which France adopted in this pos- 
ture of afiairs, and the consequences which resulted from it. 



No. XTI. 

In continuation of the paper from which we are extracting, the French 
minister thus proceeds : " In this state of things his Majesty's govern- 
ment, convinced that the Mexican cabinet had sufficiently signified what 
were its dispositions in respect to the demands of France for the repara- 
tion of wrongs inflicted, has ordered the undersigned to present once 
more, and for the last time, the same demands upon the Mexican gov- 
ernment. 

" I. The treasury of the Republic shall deliver, prior to the 25th day 
of May next, on board the French squadron which may then be at Vera 
Cruz, the sum of $600,000 — the disposition of which sum his Majesty's 
government reserves to itself, as well as the apportionment amon^*- those 



75 

Frenchmen who have suffered, within the Mexican territory, injuries 
sustained under the three heads or classes which are designated. 
******* 

" This payment being made, the Mexican government shall be released 
from all claims by France, embraced within the said three classes, for 
causes arising prior to the first day of the present month of March. 

" II. The credits which French citizens hold against the Mexican 
government, are not comprehended within the preceding stipulation, &c.. 
and the Mexican government solemnly binds itself to interpose no future 
difficulties in the way of the regular and prompt payment of these 
debts. 

" III. General Gregorio Gomez, who ordered in Tampico the assassi- 
nation of the two Frenchmen, Demovesent and Sausieu, shall be deprived 
of his employment ; and there shall be paid, as an indemnification to 
the families of the two victims, the sum of twenty thousand dollars. 

" Colonel Pardo, commandant of Coluria, guilty of the attempt to 
assassinate and severely vrounding M. Giraud Dulong, shall be deprived 
of his office ; and there shall be paid to this Frenchman, for this outrage, 
the sum of nine thousand six hundred and sixty dollars. 

*^' Senor Tamayo, judge in ^Mexico, shall be deprived of his office, for 
the illegal, iniquitous, and atrocious sentence which he perversely gave 
against M. Petro Lemoine. This Frenchman shall be immediately set 
at liberty, and shall receive an indemnification of $2,000 for the pro- 
longed and wholly unjust detention which he has suffered, and the bad 
personal treatment which he eadured in prison. There shall be paid an 
indemnification of $15,000 to the families of the Frenchmen who were 
assassinated with impunity at Atenzingo. 

" Those indemnifications provided in this article are included in the 
sum total demanded in the first article. 

" The undersigned has certainly the right — and perhaps it is his duty 
— to demand the punishment of a number of other functionaries who are 
designated, for the offences stated ; but, availing himself of the discretion 
reposed in him by his government, he confines himself to the requiring 
the punishment — exceedingly moderate in its character — of the before- 
named individuals, whose barbarous conduct is abhorrent to every prin- 
ciple of justice, of morality, and civilisation. 

" IV. The most precise and distinct stipulations are required for the 
future. 

******* 

*' Such are the demands which the undersigned, as already indicated, 
is charged to address once more, and for the last time, to the IMexican 
government. The present note is an iiUwiannn ; and the determination 



76 

of Fro.nce^ which it explains, is irrevocable^ to employ the very expres- 
sions of his excellency the president of the King's council. The 
demands contained in this ultimatum have heen so repeatedly discussed, 
under every variety of form, and for so long a time, between the Mexican 
ministry and the French legation, that the former might certainly be 
prepared to furnish a categorical answer in forty-eight hours. Never- 
theless, the undersigned will await a reply until the 15th of April. If 
(which God forbid) this reply shall contain a negative upon any one of 
the points proposed ; if even its language shall be ambiguous in any one 
particular ; if, in short, it shall he delayed beyond the 15th of April, the 
undersigned will immediately place the further conduct of the business 
in the hands of M. Bazoche, commander of the naval forces of his 
Majesty, of which a part are already on the coast of ^Mexico, and this 
superior officer will proceed to execute the ord^^rs he has received. If, 
on the contrary (and God grant such may be the case), the answer 
shall be entirely affirmative upon every point, M. Bazoche will then 
have no part in the business, excepting only in case the promises made 
by the Mexican government shall not be completely fulfilled on the loth 
of jNIay. In any case, however, in which this officer shall be required 
to act, from the moment that he has begun to carry out his orders, the 
execution of them cannot be interrupted or suspended without the entire 
and perfect fulfilment of every requirement of this ultimatum^ 

Notwithstanding the distinct and peremptory language of the French 
minister, dictating the most precise terms and conditions on which alone 
hostilities were to be suspended, and prescribing the time in which a 
categorical answer was to be given, delays nevertheless took place. 
Mexican diplomacy exerted all its power; the most conciliating lan- 
guage was employed ; promises and assurances were given in profusion ; 
and it was not until the following November, that patience and forbear- 
ance on the one side, and all the arts of dissimulation and artifice on the 
other, were exhausted, that France put in execution her threats, opened 
her artillery upon the castle of St. Juan de Ulloa, speedily brought the 
IMexicans to terms, and compelled them to pay a further sum of $200,- 
000, to remunerate France for the money she had expended in the 
enforcement of her right. 

This history has been given somewhat in detail, because the docu- 
ment, from which the foregoing extracts have been made, has been but 
rarely seen, and is little known in the United States ; because nothing 
can furnish us with more instructive lessons as well, as to the character 
and conduct of th<i Mexican pf^oplc and government. Nothing can more 
clearly demonstrate that they are restrained by no law, human or divine, 
from the p(!rpetration of any outrages, however atrocious, upon those 



77 

t^ho come within their power ; that their barbarous cruelty in inflicting 
wrong can be equalled only b}^ their mendacity in evading the conse- 
quent responsibility ; and that the only effective mode of obtaining 
redress for past injuries and preventing the infliction of similar injuries in 
future, is to employ towards them a firm and decided tone — peremptorily 
requiring compensation for the past and securit}^ for the future, and pre- 
pared to enforce upon them an observance of the laws of nations and of 
humanity, and a rigid compliance Avith their treaty engagements. 

Little doubt can be entertained that, if the first aberrations from these 
limits had been firmly resisted, and the rights of others rigidly enforced, 
the consequences would have been equally beneficial to all parties. 
Mexico, taught that she could not with impunity violate the rights of 
others, would cautiously have abstained from the perpetration of those 
enormities which must, sooner or later, be visited with condign punish- 
ment ; and adopted a policy which would have entitled her to a position 
amons: the civilized nations of the earth. 



No. XIII. 



In the exhibition we have made of the intercourse between France 
and Mexico, it has appeared how gross and violent were the outrages 
perpetrated by the latter country upon the other ; that these outrages 
were committed, not by a powerful nation, which, exultmg in her own 
strength, substituted her will for the law, against a weak and feeble 
party, but by the one which, according to the general laws of human 
nature, might have been supposed to be unwiUing to rouse the resent- 
ment of her more powerful opponent, because unable to elude the con- 
sequences which a resort to the ultima ratio of nations would be sure 
to bring upon her head — not occasioned by feelings goaded by previous 
causes of offence left rankling in her bosom, which, blinded by passion, 
might make a nation, as similar causes sometimes do an individual, blind 
to results, in his anxiety to punish an insult or an outrage of which he 
has been the victim. In this case we have seen Mexico, the weaker 
power, gratuitously, without alleged provocation or cause, beginning 
and carrying on the v/rong against a nation infinitely her superior in 
physical strength, against one who had uniformly exhibited towards her 
a mild, beneficent, and forbearing course of policy — against one who 
had never done her wrong — who had acted as her friend — who was 
disposed to treat her with kindness, and upon a footing of equality. 

Such a review wall, therefore, relieve the United States from the 



78 

suspicion of having afforded to Mexico any just, or even plausible pre- 
text, for the conduc of which we complain. We were the first to ac- 
knov/ledge her independence, and her right to assume a position among 
the nations of the world. We extended to her the right hand of ellow- 
ship. Our citizens flocked to her shores, and participated with her own 
sons in the perils of the conflict she was w^aging for her national exist- 
ence. We not only did not require at her hands any peculiar commer- 
cial privileges in our own intercourse with her, which we might have 
exacted, and she would, at the time, most willingly have yielded ; but 
we required that we should be placed only oh the footing which other 
nations were to occupy. Neither the government nor the people of 
the United States ever gave her cause, either of offence or suspicion. 
Yet such as has been portrayed, has been the treatment we have ex- 
perienced. 

The governments of Europe are not accustomed as we are to spread 
before the world the minute and circumstantial details either of their 
foreign or their domestic policy. But for the publicity given by the 
government of Mexico to her controversies with France, we should 
have remained ignorant of the circumstances to which he have had oc- 
casion to revert. It is the same with reference to Great Britain. No 
public rupture has occurred, which has furnished the occasion to ex- 
hibit to the world the course of events between her and Mexico, and 
therefore nothing relating to them can be supplied from published docu- 
ments. We are, however, in possession of facts which are susceptible 
of being sustained by authentic proof, which exhibit, in the conduct of 
Mexico towards England, some cases of wrong ; and in that of Great 
Britain, the prompt, vigorous, and effective measures which she adopted 
to obtain redress for injuries that had been inflicted, and to guard against 
their recurrence. A reference to a few of these facts will show that 
Mexico was regardful of the rights of foreigners precisely in proportion 
to the probability of their enforcement ; that her only standard of right 
was the disposition and the ability of those with whom she acted, tore- 
dress wrong ; and that she, by a timely compliance with her engage- 
ments and responsibilities, shunned a collision with England which was 
ready to break upon her head. 

In the year 1832, outrages were committed in Tabasco, in which 
British subjects and American citizens, resident in Mexico, were equal 
sufferers. They were subjected to heavy pecuniary losses, and to seri- 
ous personal injuries and insults. In the year 1S33, the British minister 
obtained full redress for the wrongs sustained by his countrymen by the 
energy, with which he prosecute. 1 his demand for reparation. In 1845, 
the American sufferers, who jarticipated in these same losses, are still 



79 

without remuneration. This is one of the numerous instances in which 
citizens»of the United States, merchants, captains of merchant vessels, 
and sailors, were subjected to the most cruel abuses, imprisonment, one 
of them actually murdered ; they endured these evils in common with 
other foreigners. Those who were under the protection of England 
and France have been indemnified by ]\lexico ; but our citizens suffer 
without redress, and those who perpetrate these outrages upon them 
escape with impunity. The narratives of Kendall and Gregg show these 
are not insulated instances. 

One other instance will be adverted to, in which the British govern- 
ment, by the decision which marked its course, obtained redress for 
injuries which its subjects had suffered, without being compelled, as 
France was, to resort to arms to enforce her rights. In the year 1S33, 
General Arista then commanding a force in opposition to the existing 
authorities, took about one hundred thousand dollars from an English 
mining company, which he applied to the payment of the troops under 
his command. The company called upon the governm^ent to indemnify 
it for this outrage. The demand was refused, on the ground that the 
nation could not justly be held responsible for the acts of those, who 
were not only acting without its authority, but in defiance of the con- 
stitutional powers of the country. Being, however, urged by the British 
minister to liquidate this claim — and this was done simultaneously with 
the demand by an American citizen who had suffered a similar wrong 
— the Mexican Secretary of Foreign Affairs, in his annual report to 
Congress, early in the year 1835, presented to the legislative depart- 
ment, in his annual report, the case of the English mining company. 
He admitted the facts as they have been stated ; but insisted upon the 
injustice of holding Mexico accountable for an outrage committed by a 
body of men who were in arms to overturn the government, an.d upon 
the impolicy of establishing a precedent in such cases ; that there were 
many Mexicans who had suffered losses under similar circumstances, 
who would, with great propriety, regard the allowance and payment to 
foreigners of such a claim as furnished an example vrhich ought to be 
followed in reference to them ; and if it were followed out, the means 
of the treasury would be insulncien.t to meet the demands made upon it. 
He also suggested that the case of foreigners could not favorably be dis- 
tinguished from that of their own people ; that during the commotions 
which had existed in Mexico, the condition of foreio-ners was much 
better than that of the natives — that they had the opportunity of realiz- 
ing extraordinary profits during such periods of violence and terror, and 
that consequently they were better able to bear the accidental losses to 
which they might be subjected, and had the less claim for comnensa- 



80 

tion for these incidental disadvantages. He further represented that 
there were numerous cases of claims of a similar character, and that the 
prompt action of the Legislature upon them was requisite, in order to 
enable the Executive to return promptly an answer to the parties in- 
terested. 

The British minister, however, did not think it expedient to await 
the dilatory action of the Mexican Congress upon this subject ; which 
long experience had taught him would only involve delay. He trans- 
mitted a copy of this olficial communication to his government, with a 
full statement of the circumstances of the case in which his demand 
had originated. By the next packet, and before Congress had moved in 
the matter, he received instructions to apprise the Mexican authorities, 
that full remuneration must be made to the mining company within a 
hmited and short period, and in the event of non-compliance with this 
demand, he was instructed to inform the admiral on the Jamaica sta- 
tion of the fact, who had been instructed to act in that case and em- 
powered to employ force in compelling the adjustment. These instruc- 
tions were communicated to the Mexican government, and within a few 
months the affair was arranged to the entire satisfaction of the EnHish 

o o 

claimants. 



No. XIV. 

We have now rapidly traced the conduct of Mexico to her relations 
with the various nations with whom she has had intercourse, during the 
comparatively brief period of less than a quarter of a century, which 
has elapsed since she began her career as a colony of Spain, asserting 
her independence of the mother-country and struggling to maintain the 
position which she had assumed. This review of her conduct is also 
a delineation of her character. Wholly ignorant of the art of govern- 
ment, her people, suddenly liberated from the shackles of astern despo- 
tism to which they had long been inured, found themselves unrestrained 
in the exercise of their newly acquired freedom. No longer held in 
fetters by the arbitrary hand of power, there was no moral force substi- 
tuted in its stead, to which they even professed allegiance. Equally ig- 
norant, as regards the faculties of their minds and their moral sense, they 
felt themselves alike incapable of guiding their conduct by the light of 
reason, and indiflerent to the dictates of virtue. They madly, recklessly 
plunged from one scene of civil turmoil into ano her ; wreaked thc^r 



81 

vengeance upon all who fell under their power ; preferred the precarious 
support of pillage and rapine to the plodding routine of industry and in- 
tegrity ; and, while they showed themselves regardless of the ties of 
affinity and kindred, they looked with especial hatred and jealousy upon 
all who bore the appearance and exhibited the character of strangers. 

Such indications of national, character v/ere so anomalous, so at vari- 
ance with everything to which civilized and Christian men had been ac- 
customed, that the accounts of their proceedings were regarded with 
incredulity. We could not believe the accounts that were, from day to 
day, transmitted from this ill-fated country. It could not be credited 
that those who had been invited to their shores in the hour of peril, who 
had participated vv'ith them in their dangers, who were introducing 
among them habits of industry, and exhibiting before their eyes the 
beautiful results of laborious honesty, who were engaged in the develop- 
ment of their abundant resources, and diffusing around them the bless- 
ings of tranquil but busy activity, would or could, by these means, rouse 
their hatred, and bring down upon themselves the dreadful calamities 
which they were made to suffer. 

All foreigners shared alike in these dreadful calamities. Murders and 
assassinations, plunder and pillage, alike awaited them ; and a fearful 
catalogue of atrocities was accumulated, such as had never before dis- 
graced a nation professing to be governed by the Christian religion, or 
recognizing the obligations of national law. 

With all this, Mexico possesses the constituents of great national 
power and greatness. Her climate is admirable, her mineral resources 
immense, and her vegetable productions calculated to be at once the 
source of wealth to herself and of comfort to the residue of the world. 

The other nations of the earth must either exclude her from the rank 
which she claims among them, or must compel her to observe those laws 
of the government to which they voluntarily ani cheerfully submit. 
We have seen that, by a timely resort to those measures of coercion 
which the circumstances of the case rendered necessary, France and 
England have compelled her to redress the wrongs which she had per- 
petrated, and to obey that law which she had violated. Were this course 
universally adopted, Mexico herself would grow r cher and happier, as 
well as better. ■ 

In determining upon the couse which, under such circumstances, 
ought to be pursued towards such a nation, the United States, while 
exhibiting that firmness and decision which become her character and 
position, is also under hig t obligations to abstain from every measure 
which bears the impress o vindictiveness or exasperation. Our rights 
are clear and beyond controversy ; they should be distinctly asserted and 



82 

energetically vinaicated .; but our strength and power enable us to pur» 
sue them with equal dignity of manner and firmness of purpose. 

It has been shown, that the claims of the United States upon the gov- 
ernment of Mexico, as well for outrages upon the livesj the persons and 
the property of our citizens, as for indignities, insults and injuries per- 
petrated upon our government, our flag and our public functionaries, 
have oTadually accumulated in number as in amount. Every new arri- 
val from Mexico brings new intelligence of some fresh wrong; and 
while no reparation is made for the past, no security is offered for the 
future. Years have elapsed since the Executive and Congress concur- 
red in the public declaration, that we should be justified before the world 
in resorting to arms to redress and punish these atrocities. We hav^e 
seen that France did adopt this system of operations to redress grievan- 
ces, not equal to the tithe of what we had suffered ; and that England 
was only prevented, under infinitely less provocation, from appealing to 
force, by the prompt and satisfactory adjustment of her demands. We 
have seen that Mexico, after having recognized the validity of our 
claims, and given the most solemn assurances that they should be liqui- 
dated and settled, has suddenly closed all diplomatic intercourse between 
the two governments ; withdrawn her own minister from the United 
States, and declined further communication with our representative. 
This course has been adopted in consequence of an alleged wrong com- 
mitted upon her honor and her rights by the action of this country upon 
Texas. This wrong she chooses to regard as so palpable and so mon- 
strous, that she will not make it the subject of discussion or negotiation. 
She considers it as admitting neither of palhation, compromise, nor ar- 
rangement. We must retrace our steps, undo what has been done, annul 
our legislative acts and our executive measures, as preliminary condi- 
tions to the resumption, of friendly intercourse between them and us. 

It is needless to say that such demands are as preposterously absurd, 
as they are insulting to the government of the United States. What 
we have done, we have done deliberately and advisedly. We have done 
it with a full persuasion and entire conviction that we have violated no 
rule of justice, no provision of public law, and done no wrong to Mexi- 
co. We have, acquired rights and incurred responsibilities which we 
cannot abandon, and will not shrink from. 

At the same time, the United vStates are willing and desirous to make 
this controverted subject a matter of friendly discussion, and fair and 
liberal adjustment. Mexico has declined this proffer, and assumes a 
ground which can rarely find justification in that code which governs 
the intercourse among nations. She asserts that her rights are too plain 



83 

to admit of question, or to allow of doubt ; and, consequently, that our 
acts are as palpably and incontrovertibly wrong and indefensible. The 
government of the United States entertain opinions exactly the opposite ; 
and no attitude can be assumed by one nation towards another more offen- 
sive and insulting, than that which imputes to the other the deliberate 
perpertration of palpable wrong, and the covering of the injurious act 
under the mantle of wilful falsehood. Mexico is bound to discuss this 
question ; and, while insisting upon her own views, to receive, examine, 
and deliberate upon those which we are prepared to present. In refus- 
ing this, she herself commits an outrage. 

One thing is at least clear, that whichever party may ultimately be 
ascertained to be in the wrong in this matter, upon no principle of pub- 
lic law can this subject furnish a justification for her refusal or neglect 
to repair the injuries she has herself inflicted upon us. She has solemnly 
recognized our rights as to these causes of complaint ; she has solemnly 
stipulated to compensate our citizens for them ; she has incurred obliga- 
tions to the American government ; conferred upon it an unquestioned 
right, and imposed upon it the corresponding obligation to enforce these 
rights if they shall be longer disregarded or neglected. These are re- 
sponsibilities from which neither nation can now honorably disengage 
itself. 

If it be asked, then, what course ought the government of the United 
States to adopt under such circumstances, the answer is obvious. But 
one course is left open, unless the claims upon Mexico are abandoned, 
and, either in direct terms or by necessary implication, it be conceded to 
her that the treaties between the two powers are virtually abrogated, 
the compacts between them annulled, and the claims cancelled by the 
admitted wrong inflicted upon her by our arrangements with Texas. 
Rejecting this as equally dishonorable and false, but one alternative 
remains. 

A distinct, and peremptory, and final demand should be at once made 
upon Mexico to fulfil her engagements, to pay the arrears of the indem- 
nity which has already been adjusted, and without further delay to pro- 
vide for the settlement of the outstanding demands upon her. This 
should be insisted upon as a sine qua non^ as an indispensable preliminary 
to the discussion of any new questions. If acceded to, this cause 
of controversy may be readily adjusted, and all the remaining pre- 
tensions of either party be considered and settled upon fair and 
liberal terms. If, however, it shall be refused or declined, it will 
become the dut}^, as it is the clear right, of the United States, either to 
follow the precedents established by France and England, of taking the 



84 

representations of the injured parties as furnishing the amount of the re- 
muneration to which they are entitled, or to create a home commission, 
empowered to examine each separate case — to adjudicate upon it in ac- 
cordance with the same principles wdiich we have asserted and admitted 
as regards Mexico herself : the amount thus ascertained, to be regarded 
as finally and definitely fixed, and Mexico required, and, if necessary 
enforced to pay it. 



MEXICO AGAINST THE UNITED STATES, 



No. I. 

It seems that the Mexican government has issued a paper, in the 
nature of a manifesto against the government of the United States. 
which is couched in the customary language of denunciation employed 
b}^ the functionaries of that nation, but without indicating very precisely 
what ulterior measures are contemplated. There is, however, one as- 
sertion thus officially prom.ulgated, which we are not sorry to see, be- 
cause it represents in a tangible form, and under the express sanction of 
the Mexican Executive, what has before been said from the same source 
on more than one occasion, and v/hich has unfortunately been received 
with some degree of credit by others than Mexicans. It is positively 
averred by that government, that, '' on the part of this Republic (Mexi- 
co), the existing treaties between.it and those (the United) States, were 
respected scrupulously and legally." 

For a complete and triumphant refutation of this mendacious asser- 
tion, it would be a sufficient answer to advert to the terms of the treaty, 
signed on the 11th April, 1839, by the representatives of the two powers, 
and the proceedings of the board of commissioners appointed under it. 
That convention provided for the adjustment of the claims of citizens 
of the United States against Mexico, for injuries perpetrated by the 
latter upon the former. Those claims were founded upon violations of 
treaty obligations. 

The third article of the treaty between the United States and Ivlexico, 
of April 5, 1831, provides that " the citizens of the two countries re- 
spectively shall have liberty freely and securely to come with their 
vessels and cargoes to all such places, ports, and rivers of the United 
States of America, and of the united Mexican States, to which other 
foreigners are permitted to come, and to remain and reside in any part 
of the said territories respectively ; * * and generally the mer- 
chants and traders of each nation shall enjoy the most complete protec- 
tion and security for their commerce." Article 14th : '' Both the con- 
tracting parties promise and engage to give their special protection to 



86 

the citizens of each other who may be iu their territories," &c. Article 
15th : " The citizens of the United States of America, residing in the 
united IMexican States, sliall enjoy in their -houses, persons, and pro- 
perty, the protection of the gov^ernment, with the more perfect security 
and hberty of conscience." The Spanish version of this article is some- 
what different ; the expression of conscience not appearing in it : " Go- 
zaran en sus casas, personas, y propriedades, de la proteccion de la go- 
bierno, y continuando en la posesion en que estan." 

A large majority of the cases presented before the board were for 
alleged violations of these treaty provisions. The memorials and proofs 
filed, and which are now in the Department of State, amply confirm 
this statement. All merely national outrages were excluded from the 
operation of this convention, and never were lain before the board. 

We have now before us the report of the proceedings of that board. 
More than nine-tenths of the claims, as has been said, for violations of 
rights secured and guarantied by treaty ; and several of these allowed 
as such by the Mexican commissioners, and many more decided by 
the umpire on this single ground. The claims thus exhibited exceeded 
ten millions of dollars. Here, then, is a judicial decision, by a board 
composed one half of Americans and the other half Mexicans, that the 
assertion now made is utterly destitute of truth. 

This instance of mendacity is not unexampled in the history of this 
people. The report of the Committee of Foreign Aftairs of the House 
of Representatives of July 7, 1838, exhibits another memorable one. 
The American Secretary had presented a list of fifty-seven distinct cases 
of claim upon Mexico for illegal outrages. Inquiry into these cases, 
and redress of the injuries complained of, were profusely promised. 
After great and unexplained delays, answers were returned in reference 
to only four ; and, in the interim, the Mexican President promulgates a 
decree, in which it is positively intimated — -1st, That Mexico had offered 
to submit the claims against her to the decision of a friendly power ; 
2d, That, in case the government of the United States should deny satis- 
faction to ^Mexico, or delay it, or continue the open aggressions already 
committed, then that Mexico should close her ports to our trade, with 
amenance of even harsher measures. The committee show it in the re- 
port that no such offer of arbitrament had ever been made, and that no 
one case had ever been, complained of in which any aggression had been 
committed by the United States against Mexico, nor any one instance in 
which satisfaction had been required for any pretended wrong. This 
paper was therefore regarded as an attempt by the Executive of Mexico 
to throw embarrassments in the way of an adjustment of our demands, 
by a false effort to induce the Legislature of that country to regard Mex- 



87 

ico as the only aggrieved party. The duphcity and mendacity of the 
Mexican Executive are fully developed in the document referred to 

Proof equally conclusive exists in abundance, which -we may hereafter 
deem it proper to adduce. 



No. 11. 

On the part of Mexico, her treaties with the United States were re- 
spected scrupulously. So asserts the Mexican Executive, in a publia 
proclamation, embodying certain resolutions of the Mexican Congress. 

Every American is interested in ascertaining how far this language is 
warranted by truth. Since the date of the fii'st of those treaties, every 
President, who has had occasion to allude to the subject — and all have, 
except Mr. Polk, to whom the opportunity has not yet bsen presented, 
but who will, ere long, doubtless, as distinctly declare his views — has 
averred, in his communications to Congress, that, from the period when 
Mexico assumed her position as an independent nation, instances were 
of almost daily occurrence, in which the laws of nations were violated 
by that power, to the injury of Americn citizens, and that, since treaties 
have been formed between the two governments, cases of the infraction 
of those treaties have been as frequent and as numerous. This was 
the deliberate language of General Jackson, Mr. Van Buren. and ]\Ir. 
Tyler. It has been as formally charged by every Secretary of State 
during the last sixteen years ; for there has been no variation in the 
character of those occurrences. Mr. Livingston and Mr. McLane, IMr. 
Forsyth, and Mr. 'Webster, Mr. Upshur and Mr. Calhoun, have each 
preferred the same high accusation. Nor has this been done, in imita- 
tion of the Mexican example, in documents addressed merely to our 
own people, and prepared only for home consumption, vrhile a different 
language has been held to Mexico herself. 

Mexico has been told to her face, by every minister who has repre- 
sented the United States at that court, that such has been her course of 
conduct. Mr. Butler, who negotiated the treaty of 1S31, from the mo- 
ment of its execution, constantly and indignantly complains of its daily 
violation. Mr. Ellis, General Thompson, and Mr. Shannon, make the 
same representations. The Committees of Foreign Relations, in the 
reports of Mr. Buchanan and Mr. Rives of the Senate, and General 
Howard and Mr. Cushing of the House, all concur in the same opinions. 
Such complaints, presented in individual cases, fortified by evidence, 
load the shelves of the Department 'of State. Several of them have un- 



88 

dergone judicial — or rather what would, but for a breach of faith on the 
part of Mexico, have been a purelj^ judicial — imnestigation ; and Judges 
Rowan, ^larcy, and Breckenridge, have pronounced their judgmenis, 
that IMexico has repeatedl}' violated treaty stipulations, and thus inflict- 
ed an immense amount of injury upon citizens of the United States. 
Over and over again have such cases been admitted by the Mexican 
authorities ; and they have recognized the truth of these accusations, 
in making a convention to provide for their adjustment, in joining in the 
decisions of the board of commissioners, and (though certainly to a very 
limited extent), paying portions of those awards. 

Yet, on some occasions, of which we have the evidence, the govern- 
ment of Mexico has unblushingly denied the truth of these allegations ; 
and, doubtless, in other instances, has attempted to deceive the people 
by representations that all these claims of American citizens were fabri- 
cated and fraudulent. It is the duty of every American citizen to as- 
certain upon which side the truth lies. Have the distinguished men, 
whose names we have cited, been misled by the false representations of 
those who profess to have been injured .- or have they wantonh', wick- 
edly, and knowingly endeavored to deceive this country, and, on false 
pretence, to bring out a collision between the two nations ? 

Our government and our people are equally interested in this investi- 
gation. The former are charged with deliberate falsification. The issue 
must be met ; and if this accusation is disproved, the honor of the coun- 
try imperatively demands that the part}- who has made it, should be 
compelled xo acknowledge the wrongs she has perpetrated, and compen- 
sate the injuries she has inflicted. The issue has been definitely made 
up. ]SIexico no longer seeks to exonerate herself from paying a just 
indemnity to our citizens, because the disorganized state of her afiau's 
prevented the exercise of her national arm in furnishing that protection 
to American citizens which she was bound to provide ; or because her 
exhausted treasury precludes the possibihty of meeting this heavy de- 
mand. No : she boldly and peremptorily avers that she has scrupulous- 
ly adhered to her treaty engagements ; — that she has done no act which 
those treaties required her to omit, and has left undone nothing she was 
bound to do. She has declared, through the resolution of her Con- 
gress, sanctioned and ratified by her Executive, that all the charges 
which have been preferred against her, of want of good faith, and viola- 
tion of treaty obligations, are false. It need hardly be asked, whether 
this government, which has preferred the charge, will remain satisfied 
with such a reply ; whether it will rest contented under this retort ; 
whether the personal integrity of our statesmen — which, happily, under 
our institutions, and with the tone of morals which pervades this land, 



89 

is, to so great an extent, identified with their public acts and language — 
is to be sustained or abandoned. For our part, we rejoice that the issue 
has thus been tendered by Mexico ; and we should be recreant to every 
sense of honor and of right, if we withheld the expression of our 
earnest wish that the gauntlet, thus thrown down, may be promptly 
taken up. 

Neither party, in this predicament, can, with honor to itself, decline or 
erade this appeal. Assailed as we now are, in a distinct, official, and 
most solemn form, it becomes incumbent upon the American nation to 
demand and insist upon it, that ^lexico shall at once unite in the appro- 
priate means of determining these high matters in controversy. A con- 
vention is before her, and has been in her hands for nearly eighteen 
months, providing these means. It creates a judicial tribunal, clothed 
with all necessary and suitable powers to examine and decide upon this 
question. Let Mexico be required to meet us upon this arena, to meet 
our allegations, and to meet our proofs. If she honestly believes what 
she has said, there will be no evasion, no prevarication, no delay. If 
she declines, let our government cause the investigation to be conducted 
among ourselves, by men of high character for integrity and talent ; and 
let the evidence laid before them, and their judgments upon that testi- 
mony, furnish our justification to the nation and to the world for what 
the government has asserted. 



No. III. 



In our last communication, it was stated that eflx)rts had been 
more than once made by the Mexican government to mislead the 
popular mind of that nation by false representations in reference to the 
United States, and especially on the subject of claims of our citizens. 
We have the strongest reasons for believing, that it has been the sys- 
tematic pohcy of that .government to excite the most embittered feelings 
of resentment and hatred against the United States, her institutions, and 
her people. The motives for this policy are obvious to all who are 
familiar with the history of that degraded nation, and who are aware of 
the character of the men who have, from time to time, swayed her des- 
tinies — of the means by which political ascendency is there attained, and 
the precarious tenure by which it is held. The object for which office 
is sought, is almost exclusively personal and sordid; the means by 
which it is attained, as universally base and unprincipled. The means 
of continuing in power are the excitement of an anticipation of a for- 



90 

eis;!! war, which furnishes a pretext for augmenting their army and 
increasing the revenue, which are afterwards employed — the first to 
maintain their ascendency, the other to swell their private fortunes. 
Such is a true synopsis of Mexican histor3^ 

Reference has already been made to oi^ instance of this duplicity, 
which was brought to notice and exposed by General Howard, of 
Maryland, in the report of the Committee of Foreign Affairs of the 
House of Representatives, in July, 1838. Another will now be adduced. 

The situation of the public press in Mexico is materially different from 
what we are accustomed to. While no newspaper is permitted to ex- 
press opinions or doctrines unpalatable to the powers that be, the gov- 
ernment journal is the authentic expositor of the views of the govern- 
ment, and indicates to the other presses, throughout the nation, the sen- 
timents and language which will be allowed to go forth to the people. 
Shortly after one of President Jackson's messages to Congress, in which 
Mexican affairs were adverted to in very distinct and appropriate terms, 
the " Diario del Gobierno^'''' the official paper, published an article, from 
which we give the following extract : 

" We do not understand what the President of the United States 
means by all this about retributions and injuries. Such expressions in- 
volve a double sense, and a future intention. In Mexico and Central 
America, we know that we owe nothing to the North Americans. General 
Jackson may pretend that the subjects of his nation should be indemni- 
fied for the smuggled articles which have been taken from them, and de- 
clared to be legally forfeited. If the Americans were not so much given 
to smuggling, and if they did not so far abuse the consideration with 
which they are regarded, there would he no complaints of any sort; and 
those which, under any circumstances, are made, are unjust, and only a 
pretext for not allowing us to be at peace, which has been the constant 
endeavor of our sympathizing friends and neighbors." 

In another paper, of about the same date, after stating that the Amer- 
icans, ^' when they meet one of our merchant-vessels at sea, they hoist 
the flag of the Texian rebels ; and, as such, take the vessel, and give it, 
or sell it, to the colonists, after having robbed her, and perhaps murdered 
all the persons on board," thus proceeds : "We know these American 
sea-faring men who trade with us, and we are aware that the whole 
nation, particularly New Orleans, is the haunt of all the villians in the 
world." 

It was surely not without reason that the American minister, in trans- 
mitting these manifestations of Mexican sincerity to his government, 
felt himself " compelled to add, that all my correspondence with the 
Department of State, verbal and written, for the last three years, has 



91 

served to convince me of the necessity' of our o;overnment adopting 
some decisive measure for convincing the Mexican government, not only 
that they must give ample satisfaction for the wrongs we have already 
suffered at their hands, bat that our rights shall, in future, be respected. 
Without some step of this character, we shall go on for years without 
number, accumulating claims against Mexico, that they never will, and 
never mean to satisfy, so long as it can be avoided. Our citizens will 
be plundered whenever the wants of the government, or the cupidity of 
some of its officers, may tempt them to commit the act. And, although 
we have promises of indemnity whenever the state of their treasury will 
permit them to do so, they, nevertheless, design by these promises 
nothing more than a mere postponement — a delay — ^to gain time for 
adding to the amount of our demands by new plundering" — a prophecy 
most signally verified. 

We have been informed from an authentic source, that when pro- 
vision was to be made for meeting: the payment of the indemnities 
awarded under the convention of 1S39, the government of Alexico not 
only resorted to the most odious and oppressive mode in which money 
could be raised — an arbitrary assessment and compulsory contribution — 
but accompanied this measure with the most violent invectives against 
the nation that had imposed upon them, by its frauds, the necessity for 
their exacting money from the impoverished people of AJexico ; thus 
causing them to execrate the United States at the payment of every 
rial ; and including in this denunciation the Prussian minister, who, in 
his capacity of umpire, had participated in the act. 

By such means have the people of Mexico been taught, by their 
rulers, to entertain towards this country the most embittered hatred. 
They regard us not only as unprincipled dastards (for this would only 
offend them as an interference with their own exclusive monopoly), but 
as exerting all our energies to injure, molest, and harass them. 

They have now, for the first time, in a plain and distinct manner, 
counting from the experience of the past upon our inexhaustable and 
all-enduring forbearance, placed us in an attitude in which silence and 
non-action will be tantamount to an acknowledgement tnat we iustly 
merit all they impute to us. 



Xo. IV. 

It miay perhaps be suggested, that in the remarks already made upon 
the issue tendered by ^^lexico to the United States — the. one assertmg 



92 

the scrupulous fidelity with which she has fulfilled her treat}- obligations ; 
the other averring an habitual disregard of those engagements — reference 
has only been made to the general language of the public functionaries 
of the two governments, which, being utterly at variance with each 
other, the community and the world are unable to decide to which of 
them credit should be given. The weight of names and of authority, if 
the individuals cited spoke of facts coming immediately under their own 
view, would undoubtedly preponderate in favor of the American side 
of the question. It may, however, be asked — Did not these gentlemen 
employ language which each derived from his predecessor, or from 
sources not implicitly to be credited ? Did not Mr. Van Buren merely 
reiterate accusations originally preferred by General Jackson ? Did not 
the latter derive his knowledge from subordinate functionaries ? And 
w^ere not they misled by the representations of interested and not trust- 
worthy claimants ? We wish some specific case of outrage ; we desire 
to know whether the alles:ations have ever been investio-ated. Has 
their investigation been conducted by men in whose integrity and capa- 
city confidence may be reposed ? Are the claimants men of respecta- 
bility and worth ? and have they sustained their pretensions by credible 
testimony ? These are all pertinent and proper subjects of inquiry ; and 
they shall be answered to the conviction of every man who may truly 
desire to come to a correct result on the subject. 

The record of the proceedings of the board of commissioners, as 
reported to Congress, is now before us, and the document is accessible 
to all who have curiosity to examine the matter. In the first tabular 
statement appended to it, embracing cases which were decided by the 
concurrent judgment of the American and Mexican commissioners, will 
be found the following; Peter Harmony, New York, amount awarded, 
$11 ,130 — the ground of claim, " specie seized on the way to Vera Cruz, 
by officers of the government, for its use." J. J. Astor & Son, New 
York, $37,661 94 — " For the brig Cossack, seized on the western coast 
of Mexico, &c." Smith Thompson, and others, $2,093 67—" Brig 
Splendid, seized and employed b}'- the IMexican government." Theo- 
dore Ducoing, $2,450 — "For forced loan and seizure of property." 
John F. Old et a/., $13,267 69— " Brig Delight, detention of the vessel, 
and seizure of part of the cargo." 

The second table comprehends cases which were finally decided b}- 
the umpire, the members of the board difTering in opinion. This includes 
the following cases : Arnold, Hicks, and others, $77,260 57 — eizure 
of the ship Louisa and cargo. Jackson Marine Insurance Company, 
$9,361 95 — schooner Brazoria seized and employed in the Mexican 
service. Thomas Wilson, $47,194 32 — seizure of schooner Fair Ameri- 



93 

can. Eobinson Potter, $3,363 50— seizure of, and employment as a 
transport of brig William. John Baldwin, $12,803 39 — personal inju- 
ries, loss of property, imprisonment, &c. M. Mitchell, $9,636 64 — 
seizure of specie for the use of the government, between Mexico and 
Vera Cruz. Boric and Laguerenne, $35,336 50 — illegal exaction of 
duties. Aaron Leggett, $99,487 94 — seizure of steamboat, and other 
outrages. Dennis Callagan, $12,042 — seizure of vessel and imprison- 
ment. G. G. and S. Howland, $18,058 61 — seizure of wax. Joseph 
Smith, $18,762 63 — seizure of merchandise. John Baldwin $100,000 
— various outrages, designated by the commissioners as " a case of the 
most extraordinary and aggravated nature," and for which the American 
members av\-arded upwards of $210,000. Same, $45,174 75 — similar 
atrocities. C. Bradbury and others, $119,966 39 — detention of the 
brig Franklin. 

The foregoing constitute but a small number of cases of this descrip- 
tion, in many of which the Mexican commissioners only differed from 
their American colleagues in fixing the measure of compensation, and 
in all of which they were afforded a full opportunity of opposing any 
allowance. 

A. third table shows the cases which were returned by the umpire 
without his award ; he being debarred, by the expiration of the commis- 
sion, from fulfilling his entire duty. 

The same tabular statements comprehend a very large number of 
claims thus passed upon, which were not of this particular class. They 
were, not for illegal seizures of persons and property, but for simple 
breach of faith on the part of Mexico, in not paying for advances and 
supplies furnished her. Enough, however, has been shown to make it 
perfectly manifest, that among the claimants v/ere some of the most dis- 
tinguished and irreproachable merchants in the land ; that their allega- 
tions have been examined by eminent and experienced judges ; that 
Mexico had every opportunity of opposing every case, while the claim- 
ants were' equally debarred from seeing the evidence and hearing the 
arguments adduced against them ; and that the result fixes upon Mexico 
the most flagrant violations of public law, of treaty stipulations, and of 
personal rights. 

Still again the inquiry may be made — What was the character of the 
outrages of which complaint is made ? This also shall be answered. 
- One shall be taken, which, from its public character, could not be brought 
before the board ; and one of private outrage, which v/as thoroughly 
examined, and upon which the commissioners and the umpire passed 
their judgment. In selecting these, it must be observed that they are 
thus brought forward, not because they are distinguished from others by 



94 

anv peculiar!}^ aggravating circumstances, but because the facts are 
exhibited in an authentic shape, and no question can be raised as to the 
truth of the narrative. 

It will be unnecessan* here to particularize the case of Mr. Slacum, 
an officer of the navy of the United States, a bearer of despatches from 
the department of State to the United States legation at Mexico, in 
1S36, who was arrested by Mexican officers, his public despatches 
demanded, and he subjected to violent, rude, and offensive treatment ; 
or of the case of another pubhc messenger of the United States bearing 
despatches from our minister, carrj'ing with him a passport of safe-con- 
duct from the supreme government of Mexico, verifying his character, 
who was seized by the governor of Perote and robbed of his despatches ; 
or of another officer who was seized and imprisoned On landing from a 
national vessel. Such cases were outrages upon the nation, for which 
atonement was never made. 

We shall proceed to one in which every species of lawless atrocity 
seems to have been combined. In December, 1S35, a ]\Iexican officer, 
of the name of Jose Antonio Mexia, landed at Tampico with a body of 
men, under the Mexican flag. His unfortuna.te associates had been 
inveigled into accompanying him, by false representations as to their 
destination, and the object of the expedition. Among them were seve- 
ral forei2:ners, the larger number of whom were Americans. They fell 
into the hands of Santa Anna. The foreigners, including eighteen citi- 
zens of the United States, were, without trial, ordered for execution, 
and inhumanly murdered, while the Mexican part of them were not 
punished. Two Frenchmen accompanied this expedition, and were 
among the victims ; and for this illegal and inhuman murder, France 
exacted of Mexico such atonement as she thought proper to demand. 
None has ever been made to the government of the United States, or to the 
families of these unhappy victims of Mexican perfid}- and Mexican cruelty. 

I shall conclude this paper with a quotation from the despatch of the 
American minister at ^lexico, transmitting to his government a state- 
ment of this transaction, and his commentary upon it. " It is not for 
me," he says, " to point out the course which my government should 
pursue on the present occasion ; bat surely none better could present 
itself, to justify us in teaching these semi-barbarians a lesson of justice 
and good fiith ; and I will add, that if this barbarous and inhuman act be 
submitted to — should the Mexican government be permitted to escape, 
without making the most ample satisfaction, not only the property and 
lives of our countrymen in Mexico will hereafter be held at the mercy 
of every petty officer v/ho pleases to exert his power, but we will be- 
come the scorn of all nations. Such are the impressions here on this 
matter." 



95 



No. V. 

It seems proper to present one case of priyate wrong, which will 
equally illustrate the course of conduct which the Mexican functionaries 
have been allowed to pursue towards American citizens, and the vexa- 
tions and embarrassments interposed in the way of obtaining redress for 
the most aggravated injuries ; while, at the same time, it will furnish 
the means of arriving at a just ..decision upon the issue now made be- 
tween the two governments. Mexico solemnly asserts that she has 
scrupulously adhered to her treaty stipulations. She asserts this, while 
independently of the two instalments payable by her under the conven- 
tion of 1 S43 — about which so much mystery seems to exist, but for 
which she holds the receipt of the American agent — independently of 
this, she undoubtedly is in default, in not paying the instalments which 
fell due in October, January, and April last. 

This is by-the-by. Our immediate object is to exhibit one case, on 
which Mexico has been heard, the evidence produced (that evidence 
mainly consisting of the judicial proceedings in her own courts), and 
the decision pronounced. It has been selected, not because the circum- 
stances of it are marked by any peculiar atrocity or injustice, but because 
the very worthy gentleman, who was the claimant in the case, has been 
an object of some public attention, and prejudices may have been im- 
bibed, equally without foundation in fact, and unjust to him. The case 
thus selected, is one of the several cases in which Dr. John Baldwin was 
the claimant ; and there hes, at this moment, before us, the statement 
of the facts, and the exhibition of the merits of this case, not resting 
upon the veracity of the party himself, or his counsel, but embodied in 
the judicial opinion of Messrs. Marcy and Breckenridge, whose charac- 
ters sufficiently authenticate and verify their solemn judgment, delivered 
under all the high responsibilities of their judicial office. 

The document before us states, that "the claimant, Dr. Baldwin, a 
gentleman of talents, education, and extensive connection in the United 
States, being possessed of considerable capital, went to Mexico about 
the year 1824. His object in going there was to establish himself, not 
only as a merchant, but also for the purpose of constructing extensive 
saw-mills, being possessed of skill in such machinery, which might be 
orreatly advantageous to Mexico as well as to himself. The situation 
c-hosen by him was one of the most important in the whole extent of the 
RepubUc — ^the isthmus of Guascualco, south of the port of Vera Cruz — 
the country bordering on the river Guascualo, being then almost a wil- 



96 

derness of heavily-timbered lands. The government of Mexico, about 
the same time, had projected a settlement or colony there ; and a num- 
ber of French families v^ere invited to settle in the neighborhood chosen 
by Dr. Baldwin. 

" Under the active enterprise and exertions of Dr. B., who had 
brought with him capital, workmen, and persons skilled in machinery, 
the new settlement grew rapidly, and gave birth to the village of Mina- 
tillan. Mills of great value were erected by Dr. Baldwin, at which the 
mahogany and other valuable timber of the country was sawed, giving 
employment to many persons, natives and foreigners, and bidding fair to 
lay the foundation of an important branch of wealth and industry to 
the nation.'' 

" Dr. Baldwin had purchased a tract of land a league square ; and 
on this land, of which he was put in possession by the seller, he erected 
his mills, dwelling-house, and other establishments. He also made ex- 
tensive preparations for clearing lands, &c., for establishing a coffee 
plantation upon a large scale. He was thus in the full tide of prosperity : 
and, if he had been protected by the Mexican authorities and govern- 
ment, would, in a few years, have realized a princely fortune. The 
facts thus stated are either established by the documents, or are of his- 
torical notoriety, which, it is presumed will not be questioned." 

'' But these prospects were soon overcast. The series of oppres- 
sions and persecutions, of which Dr. B. complains, commenced soon 
after the arrival of Gaddeo Ortiz in this colony, who, under the title 
of commissioner, was invested with extensive political power." 

"The first fact, in point of time, is that sworn to in the deposi- 
tions of S. Macord and C. Macord. Some time in the year 1828, 
Dr. B. demanded of the commissioner Ortiz pa3"ment of a sum of 
money for lumber furnished for the use of the public, in building a 
church and government-house. They state that Ortiz. took offence at 
this. It is certain that the injuries complained of by Dr. B. commence-d 
soon after that occurrence." It is then shown that certain judicial pro- 
ceedings purport to be signed by an alcalde who could neither read nor 
write, to be founded on testimony given by witnesses, who, when con- 
fronted with the accused, solemnly denied that they had given any such 
evidence, or even testified at all ; and that this proceeding was finally 
proved to be spurious before the higher tribunals. " In the meantime, 
the claimant had suffered in his person, in his purse, and in his reputa- 
tion. He had been imprisoned nearly a year, his property seized, and 
his character as a merchant impaired, his feelings as a man outraged, 
and his numerous friends in the United States chagrined by his name 
being regularly published in the newspapers in the State of Vera Cruz, 



97 

as the stranger John Baldwin, accused of murder, disobedience to the 
authorities, of stealing timber from the public lands, of opening a private 
letter addressed to another person, and other offences ! But, being a 
man of intelligence and energy of character, with that sturdy spirit of 
resistance to oppression which belongs to his countrymen, he followed 
up these different charges through a period of nine years ; until on the 
more serious accusations he was acquitted by the superior tribunals, 
while all the others vanished in smoke." The evidence is examined in 
detail ; and it is shown, that upon these fabricated pretences, the pro- 
perty of Dr. R., consisting of his saw logs, amounting to about ^15,000, 
was seized and confiscated to the State ; possession was taken of his 
establishment and houses, and he was thrust out of his dwelling with a 
few minutes' notice. Neither he nor his family were permitted to take 
anything away — not even a small bundle for the use of his wife. The 
soldiers kept posssession for three or four months ; and when B. and his 
family came back, they found nothing but the empty houses and mills. 
Ortiz, after causing Baldwin to be driven from his house, took posses- 
sion of the premises, and disposed of everything as his own, until the 
revolution which placed General Guerrero in the presidential chair ; 
when Martin Arriola, commandant of Acayuacan, restored B. to his 
home ; but his moveable property had all disappeared in the mean- 
time." 

In a subsequent part of this document, after a minute review of the 
testimony, the American commissioner says : " We think that the evi- 
dence of bad faith and fraud on the part of the commissioner Ortiz, and 
his successor, Hoyos, is too glaringly manifested on the face of the pro- 
ceedings we have detailed, to be for a moment questioned. The violent 
and malignant character of the denunciatory letter of Ortiz, at once be- 
trays the motive by which he was actuated. He had important political 
power ; he styles himself commissioner of the colony of Guascualco, 
authorised by the general government of Mexico, and of Oaxaca and 
Vera Cruz ; and his malignant influence may be traced from Guascualco 
to Tehuantepec, and was probably the source of nearly all the sufferings 
of Dr. Baldwin in the country. Besides the letter in which he appeals 
to the higher political authority- — but appeals in vain — for the sanction 
of his arbitrary acts, especially in that of banishing Dr. Baldwin, we 
have the forged ' Sumaria ' — established to be such, beyond a doubt. 
There are, first, the repeated signatures of Montalvo (who could not 
write his name), and next, there is the hand-writing, which, by com- 
parison, is evidently that of Ortiz himself, and his secretary Vallejo. 
One of the commissioners^ by a singular coincidence^ happens to be well ac- 
quainted with the hand-writing of Ortiz, having known him in New Or- 



98 

leans twenty-Jive or thirty years ago, having taken Spanish lessons from 
him, and corresponded with him. He does not hesitate to pronounce that 
the greater part of the ' Sumaria ' is in his hand-writing ; and the signa- 
ture of Montaho is sometimes his, and sometimes that of Vallejo.''^ 

We have here the most indubitable proof that this high functionary 
first perpetrated a high-handed act of lawless tyranny, involving an 
American citizen in ruin, und then endeavored to cover over his iniqui- 
ties by the forgery of a judicial record. Further details of this case will 
be given in our next. 



No. VI. 

'^ We resume our quotations from the report of Messrs. Marcy and 
Breckenridge on the claim of Dr. Baldwin. 

" We have refrained from entering into a detail of the circumstan- 
ces attending the unparalleled act of atrocity in the two Mexican func- 
tionaries, (Ortiz and Hoyos), in first attempting the life of Dr. Baldwin, 
by ordering him to be shot by a brutal soldiery on his attempting to es- 
cape the ignominy — worse than death, to one possessing the feelings of 
a gentleman — of being placed in the public stocks, intended for the low- 
est order of criminals and malefactors. He was, however, compelled to 
undergo this degradation during the space of two hours, v/ith a broken 
leg, and was then hurried to a loathesome prison, where he v/as detain- 
ed eighty-four days. But for his own skill as a physician, he must in- 
evitably have perished ; and this was, no doubt, the confident calculation 
of the conspirators. They had doubtless calculated with equal confi- 
dence on the effect of their various criminal prosecutions. They sup- 
posed it would be impossible for him to remain in the country, under 
such circumstances ; and but for the possession of an extraordinary 
degree of fortitude on the part of Dr. Baldwin, and the desire to rescue 
his reputation from the stigma attempted to be cast upon it, their designs 
would have been accomplished. He persevered until all the accusations 
made against him were annihilated. We consider it our duty on this 
occasion, not only to do justice to Dr. B. for injuries to his person and 
property, but also for the assaults made on his reputation. Our Mexi- 
can colleagues, we regret to say, have indulged in disparaging reflections 
on this head, not warranted by any evidence in the proceedings submit- 
ted to us. 

" As men do not act without adequate motives, or soil their conscien- 
ces with crime of the deepest dye, without those stronger incentives 



99 

which govern the human passions, other considerations will here be pre^ 
sented besides those of hate and reveDge, and the desire to wipe out 
debts by exterminating the creditor. The property acquired and crea- 
ted by the enterprise, skill, and capital of Dr. B., presented a glit- 
tering prize to petty pro-consular avarice and cupidity," &c. " With 
the advantages possessed by Dr. B. in his extensive commercial relations 
and capital, and his valuable saw-mills and plantations of coffee and tro- 
pical fruits, it is impossible to doubt but that, with a moderate protec- 
tion from the Mexican government, he would have acquired a fortune 
more desirable than that of the most valuable of the mines of Mexico. 
It was no doubt, in a great measure, owing to an unwillingness on his 
part to sacrifice these brilliant hopes, that he endured the oppressions of 
the authorities, still flattering him^self with the belief that a better order 
of things might be established. 

" We shall make the following extract from the letter of ^h. Butler, 
of September, 1S33, based on Mr. Livingston's instructions. 

" ' The undersigned is further instructed to declare, that the govern- 
ment of the United States of America, in pressing for the redress of the 
injuries suffered by Dr. Baldwin, and in discharge of those solemn du- 
des it owes to every citizen of our country, in affording him the most 
ample protection, designs to make this a national question, and v:ill so 
treat it hereafter.'^ 

" After the above explicit declaration, placing the case of Dr. B. upon 
a distinct and separate ground from any other, it might be reasonably 
doubted whether it is included under the general convention subsequent- 
ly entered into. It might be contended that, not being provided for by 
a special clause, the nation was still left at liberty to vindicate its honor 
and its rights in any other mode. If there had been no other cause of 
complaint against Mexico., the United States icould have been bound, after 
such a declaration J to push that demand., even to the extremity of war. 

" The ground thus taken by the government of the United States, 
the highest political power of the nation, is based on the assumption of 
the truth of the facts presented to it. The words of Mr. Livingston are 
as follows : ' If the fact-s in the case of Baldwin are such as he repre- 
sents them to be, the honor of our country requires that ample reparation 
should be made to the sufferer.' Our examination of the proofs of the 
case has brought us to the conclusion that the statements of the claimant 
to his government are substantially sustained. The principles on which 
we are bound by the convention to decide the cases brought before us, 
obhge us to come to a result in regard to Dr. Baldwin's private rights, 
- entirely compatible with what the government of the L^nited States inti- 
mated was due to its national honor— reparation of his ag2.ravated 



100 

wrongs." Upon this case, the American commissioners, indulging the 
hope entertained, that, by placing the most moderate estimate upon the 
remuneration to which the claimant was entitled, no difficulty or doubt 
could be entertained, and that it would be immediately acquiesced in, 
assessed the damages to which he was entitled at $210,405 09. In 
consequence, however, of the non-production of his title-deed for the 
real estate, of which he had been robbed by his plunderers, and which, 
therefore, it was not in his power to produce — for which a demand was 
made upon the Mexican government, under one of the articles of the 
treaty, to which she responded by alleging, on the authority of the local 
functionaries, that it was destroyed by fire while in their possession — 
this sum was reduced by the umpire to the sum of $100,000. Such is 
a very imperfect sketch of the circumstances upon which one of the 
claims of American citizens against Mexico rested. The evidence to 
sustain the allegations of the claimant were, in a great extent, the record 
of the proceedings of their own courts. Nine years of persecution 
were endured ; a princely estate despoiled ; the most glorious promises 
nipped in their bud ; — all through the instrumentality of Mexican func- 
tionaries, executive and judicial. It has been examined and decided by 
our ablest diplomatists and jurists ; yet Mexico asserts before the world, 
and her Executive and her Legislature a"ver before their own people, 
that she has been faithful to her engagements, loyal to her honor ; and 
that the United States has no other pretence of claim than such as is 
afforded by an iniquitous attempt to cover the smuggling operations of 
her citizens with the veil of ri2;ht ! 



VII. 

Those who have perused the preceding articles which have appeared 
under this head, must, it is presumed, be prepared to pass their judg- 
ment upon the bold assertion which Mexico has so solemnly pro- 
claimed to the world, that .she has scrupulously respected her treaty 
obligations. The course of that nation has been rapidly sketched from 
authentic documents. It has been shown that it has been uniform and 
consistent, equally setting at defiance the laws of nations and of human- 
ity, and equally regardless of public and private rights. The details of 
a great body of the cases in which the citizens of the United States 
have suffered wrongs from the public authorities of Mexico, are still to 
be found in the Department of State, and have never been promulgated 
to the public. Numerous instances have occurred in which the unfor- 



101 

tunate victims of Mexican inhumanity have perished under her cruel 
grasp, and the history of the wrong has been buried in the grave of the 
unhappy sufierer. The pubhc documents, and other authentic sources 
of information, mention many such cases. In inany others, the parties, 
hopeless of rousing the sympathies of their countrymen or the energy of 
their government, have abandoned the prosecution of claims which ne- 
cessarily involve a large expenditure of time and money, which they 
were unable to command ; while in others, ruin, bankruptcy, or death 
has devolved upon assignees or destitute widows and orphans the right 
to redress, which they knew neither how nor where to seek. 

In the present paper, I shall present a case which will furnish to the 
American public, who have always associated high official station with 
personal honor and veracity, an opportunity of judging whether such a 
connection subsists in Mexico. In House Doc. No. 269, 27th Con- 
gress, 2d session, will be found the counter-statements of the American 
and Mexican commissioners upon the claim of Mr. Aaron Leggett. An 
extract from the opinion of the former will illustrate this subject. It 
will be found at page 11 of the Document : 

" The next question to be resolved is, did the public authorities of 
the State of Tabasco, or any other of the Mexican States, invade Leg- 
gett's right, or permit it to be invaded, under circumstances which in- 
volved the Mexican government in a responsibility therefor ? 

" In discussing this question at the board, our colleagues seemed to 
place the utmost reliance on the statements contained in the record of 
the proceedings before the judge of the court of primary jurisdiction at 
Tabasco, in November, 1S34. On the contrary, we, the undersigned, 
regarded the statements therein as worthy of very little consideration. 
It is certainly of great importance, in the outset of this discussion, that 
the true character of this portion of the evidence should be ascertained. 
We shall, in the first place, show the circumstances under which this 
evidence was taken ; and infer therefrom, that, were it not contradicted, 
it would be entitled to very little credence ; and, in the next, we shall 
show its absolute falsity in several important particulars. 

'' Leggett had, some time before this investigation was ordered, not 
only complained to the Mexican government of the violation of his 
rights, but he had presented an account of his losses and damages in 
consequence thereof, and made an earnest and urgent claim for indemni- 
fication." " Not only was this large claim urged by Mr. Leggett on the 
Mexican government, but the American government had been called 
upon to interpose in behalf of its injured citizen, and had actually done 
so. The Mexican government perceived (as well it might) that this was 
a serious matter, and began to take steps to defend itself from so large a 



102 

demand upon its treasurj^ It sent Leggett's memorial, documents, 
&c., to tiie judge of the court of primary jurisdiction of Tabasco, with a 
view to have the matters therein contained inquired into. We will not 
say that the object of the jMexican government, in ordering this investi- 
gation, was not fair ; but it is obvious to the slightest reflection, that 
the results of such an investigation, unless the claimant was permitted 
to be present to cross-examine the v^atnesses which might be called on 
the part of the Mexican government, and produce witnesses on his part 
in support of his claim, would be of very little avail in subserving the 
ends of truth and justice. But, in regard to the conduct of those who 
had the charge c? this proceeding, we must say tha-t it seems to have 
been their object to get up a contradiction to the facts in Leggett's me- 
morial ; and when those facts were so obvious as to defy contradiction, 
to pervert them, and to explain the transactions with Leggett in such a 
manner as to furnish an excuse for withholding indemnity from him. 

^' When the claims of American citizens — among which was Mr. 
Leggett's — were pressed upon the Mexican government for adjustment, 
previous to this time, by the American minister (Mr. Butler), the Vice 
President of the Republic — G eneral Santa Anna, then exercising its 
chief Executive functions — replied to him, through Mr. Carlos Garcia, 
Secretary of State, that ' his excellency had directed the undersigned to 
inform Mr. Butler that the government, in consequence of what was de- 
termined and communicated to him on the 21st ultimo, cannot admit of 
any other arrangement than that the persons interested should appear at 
the Treasury Department for the prosecution of such business, where 
justice will be administered to them, conformably to the laws of the 
countr}^," &c. 

" In consequence of this absolute refusal of the Mexican government 
to consider the claims of American citizens, without their personal ap- 
pearance ' at the Treasury Department,' (a strange position, indeed I) 
the negotiation in regard to these claims M'as arrested. JN'otice of this 
fact was communicated to Mr. Leggett, at New York. As all his pro- 
perty had been lost, and all his future prospects centred upon the indem- 
nity which he expected from the Mexican government, he repaired, in 
the spring of 1834, to Mexico, to appear in person * at the Treasury 
Department,' as the order of the Executive department required, to bring 
his business to a conclusion. He arrived at the city of Mexico early in 
the summer of 1S34, and there remained more than two years, devoted 
exclusively to this business, encouraged with hopes of justice, which 
were ultimately d<>stin(Hl to be cruelly disappointed. While he was 
thus there, urging the adjustment of his claim, this investigation was or- 
dered ; but the organization of the court, and its whole proceedings. 



103 

were kept a profound secret from him (though it was well known he 
was in Mexico all the time, and had no other business), until the 27th 
August, 1835, long after its session had closed. On the 1st September, 
Leggett addressed Mr. Bonilla, Secretary of Foreign Affairs, for a copy 
of the proceedings of the Tabasco court. The proceedings were not 
made known to him ; but the Secretary of State, by Mr. Tornel, the 
Secretary of War, furnished him with the statement contained in the 
document, pp. 76, 77.' 

" So far as this document reiterates the statement in the record, it is 
of the same validity as the record itself, which we shall show, is en- 
titled to no credence whatever. But we cannot withhold our astonish- 
ment that Mr. Tornel, Secretary of War, should state that it appeared 
before that court, and in its proceedings, that Leggett ov/ed the cus- 
tom-house fourteen thousand .dollars for duties, for which he was sued 
and judgment had passed against him therefor, and his property was 
seized, &c. We have the record of that investigation ^ and it shows no 
such thing ; and, what is equally remarkable, no such fact ever existed, 
within or out of the record. When we see, as we do in this instance, ex- 
treme carelessness, in relation to facts, in this high functionary of the 
government, we are not to be surprised that ojQ&cers of a much lower 
order should be very reckless in their statements." 

In reference to the merits of this particular claim, it will not be neces- 
sary to go into any minuteness or detail. The facts, and the evidence 
to sustain them, are given with much force and ability in the report of 
the American commissioners above referred to, and which, it is under- 
stood, was drawn up by Governor Marcy. He cites, however, in that 
paper, a statement of what occurred in an interview between the Ame- 
rican minister and the INIexican President on this special subject : " In 
the course of the interview, General Santa Anna admitted that you had 
suffered great wrong ; but said, the injuries done you, although to be 
regretted, were incident to the peculiar condition of the country, at that 
period undergoing a political revolution — during which, individual rights, 
whether of person or property, were equally disregarded, and expressed 
regret and mortification that the state of the public treasury would not 
permit immediate satisfaction to be made to you." 

The American commissioners awarded to My. Leggett, $407,079 41, 
for his losses ; but the amount was reduced by the umpire. jN'o part of 
it was admitted by the Mexicans. 



No. VIII. 

It is presumed that the case has now been completely established, 
that Mexico has violated the treaty engagements with the United States, 
and that a large amount of injury has thus been inflicted upon Ameri- 
can citizens, for which she is bound to make compensation. The obli- 
gation of the government of the United States to demand and insist 
upon this act of justice, has been so frequently and so distinctly avowed 
and recognized by it, that it will be unnecessary to go into an argument 
to sustain the existence of the duty. 

A very serious and interesting inquiry remains. How shall this obli- 
gation be enforced, and this duty fulfilled I It may be answered, that it 
will be done by some arrangement made between the two powers ; for 
even should Mexico be so lost to all sense of justice and of policy as to 
declare war against us, still such a war must be brought to a close, and 
terms of peace agreed upon. Independently, also, of the questions 
growing out of wrongs perpetrated upon our citizens, there are great 
questions of boundary to be arranged, which must be adjusted by treaty. 

Assuming, therefore, that the government of the United States will, 
sooner or later, redeem its pledge of obtaining that remuneration for 
these wrongs, which has been so repeatedly and solemnly promised, we 
shall proceed to inquire, in reference to the claims themselves, what 
course of proceeding is open to the Executive, and what is that which 
will commend itself to its judgment ? 

In conducting this examination, valuable lights ma}'^ be thrown on the 
subject, drawn from our own past history, and from the principles here- 
tofore recognized and established by the eovernment, as well in relation 
to such of our citizens as alleged themselves to be injured, as to the for- 
eign nations who were the perpetrators of these wrongs. 

The first instance which occurred in our history was with Great Bri- 
tain, with which nation many embarrassing questions had grown up since 
the tn aty of peace in 17S3. Many of these questions were of an ex- 
clusively political and national character, which need be noticed only so 
far as to remark, that they were conducted to an harmonious conclusion 
by the treaty of 1794. But a very important subject to be arranged 
was, that of claims of citizens of the United States, who alleged that, 
during the then pending war, " they have sustained considerable losses 
and damage by reason of the illegal capture or condemnation of their 
vessels and other property, under color of autliority or commissions from 
his Majesty ; and that, from various circumstances belonging to such 
cases, adequate compensation for the losses and damages so sustained 



105 

cannot now be actually had and obtained by the ordinary course of judi- 
cial proceedings."'' These cases were provided for under the 7th Article 
of the treaty of 179-4 — (1 Laws United States, p. 241). It will be re- 
marked, that there is but a single class of cases comprehended within 
this provision, viz : for illegal capture and condemnation under the au- 
thority of the British government ; that it embraced, and, in fact, was 
mainly confined to, cases in which the capture had been sanctioned by 
a decree of condemnation in the British courts of admiralty ; and thirdly, 
that the treaty, by pronouncing such capture and condemnations as ille- 
gal, had already disposed of this preliminary question, otherwise full of 
embarrassment, and conceded that the orders from the British govern- 
ment were wrongful, and that the most solemn adjudications of their 
admiralty courts were confessedly illegal, and imposed upon the. govern- 
ment of Great Britain the obligation of making full compensation. 

In discharge of its own acknowledged duty towards its citizens, the 
government of the United States instructed Mr. Jay, eminent for his 
high legal attainments, to examine minutely into these cases ; the Sec- 
retary of State, also a distinguished lawyer, proffered to furnish his 
views, together with all the information in the possession of the depart- 
ment. Xot satisfied with this, on the recommendation of ]\Ir. Jay that 
the T'^nited States should employ a special agent for the purpose of giving 
his individual attention to this business, the Secretary of State, in his 
despatch to Mr. Jay, of October 29, 1794, says : " On Tuesday next, 
the Adriana will carry to London Mr. Samuel Bayard. In consequence 
of your recommendation that an agent should be sent, that gentleman 
goes over, with the approbation of the merchants of this city interested 
in British captures, for the objects designated in your letter of the 23d 
August. When I convened them for the purpose of consultation, they 
seemed to have great reluctance to meddle at all in a business which 
they considered as taken wholly into the hands of the government. 
But, after many explanations and remarks which passed between us, 
they resolved to appoint a committee, who should act in concert with 
me. That committee accordingly wrote me the enclosed letter.* I 
accepted their proposition as there expressed, because I knew it to be 
consentaneous to the views of the President, who has this day signified 
his approbation." 

Another agent (a Mr. Higginson) was also sent to the West Indies, to 
procure the records from the several courts of vice-admiralty. 

One impediment which immediately arose on the business, was occa- 
sioned by the necessity which existed of carrying all the decrees of con- 
demnation, passed by the colonial vice-admiralty courts, to England for 

* This letter does not appear. 



106 

final adjudication. This step involved the necessity of giving security 
on the appeal in each case, and of furnishing the naeans for paying the 
legal costs and professional fees in every case. This was almost an 
impossibility on the part of the claimants. The government assumed 
the heav}" duty ; it authorized the employment as counsel of the two 
most distinguished advocates at the English bar (Sir John Nichols and 
Sir William Scott), competent and able proctors to conduct the cases 
through the court of admiralty ; instructed Mr. Jay and Mr. Bayard to 
engage some responsible commercial house in London to become security 
in the appeal bonds, with a full assurance of indemnity, and an immedi- 
ate advance of £30 in each case of appeal, to the proctor. — See Doc. 
106, 1 Gales and Seaton's State Papers, Foreign Relations, 470, 499, 
513, 514, 515. 

In this case there was a mixed commission, and we have seen the 
steps pursued by the government of the United States in discharging its 
obligations to give protection to its citizens. 

The only other case of a tribunal of this character having been created 
to adjust the claims of American citizens upon a foreign government, 
"within our recollection, was also under an arrangement with Great 
Britain. By the first Article of the treaty of Ghent, it was provided 
that " all territory, places, and possessions whatever, taken by either 
party from the other during the war, &c., shall be restored without 
delay, &c., without any destruction or carrying away of any public pro- 
perty, or any slaves- or other private property." A controversy arose 
between the two governments upon the construction of this Article, and 
it remained unsettled from 1815 till 1820, when, by mutual arrangement, 
it was submitted to the Emperor of Russia to determine upon the true 
interpretation of the treaty. The construction contended for by the 
United States having been sanctioned by the decision of that monarch, 
thus settling the entire legal question, the ascertainment of the amount 
of injury, which had been sustained by American citizens by the depor- 
tation of their property, was submitted to a board of commissioners, 
composed of representatives of both nations. In this case, also, it will 
be remarked, that the question of law, upon the decision of which the 
validity of the claims rested, were all settled preliminarily between the 
two governments. All that was left for the board was, the ministerial 
duty of ascertaining the items and value of the property carried away 
by the British forces, in violation of the treaty of peace. 

Unlil the unfortunate arrangement with Mexico, by which the claim- 
ants were turned over to the tender mercies of a board constituted of an 
equal number of citizens of both countries, these were, as it is believed, 
the only instances in w hich the government of the United States had ever 



107 

assented to the organization of a tribunal of this description, to whose 
decision the rights and interests of its citizens were committed. We 
have seen in these instances how cautionsly their rights and interests 
were guarded ; and no fair and honorable claimant would or could object, 
under the circumstances, to the investigation and adjudication of his 
case by such a tribunal as was constituted. How far the Mexican 
claimants have cause to complain, will be made to appear. 



No, IX. 



There has occurred in the history of our country, a second class of 
cases, in which the United States have obtained from foreign govern- 
ments compensation for wrongs inflicted upon our citizens. The 
most important of these are those of France, Spain, Naples, and Den- 
mark. In reference to each and all of these, the relations of amity had 
been re-established between the respective powers before these matters 
were adjusted. Spain, Naples, and Denmark were called upon to atone 
for injuries which had been perpetrated, when the nation itself within 
whose borders they had been committed, was subjected to a foreign 
sway. Morally, the nation, under these circumstances, was innocent of 
the wrong. A superior and controlling authority had done the acts com- 
plained of; and the subjected power, when the ancient regime was re- 
established, was called upon to redress injuries which they had no hand 
in perpetrating, and which they would most gladly have prevented. By 
a well-settled principle of public law, however, the responsibility had 
attached ; but every consideration required that it should be enforced 
as leniently as possible. 

After an examination by our own functionaries of the grounds of com- 
plaint, a definite sum was fixed upon, which it was agreed to accept as 
a full atonement for these injuries, thus vicariously to be satisfied by an 
innocent party. Commissioners appointed by the United States inves- 
tigated the claims, and distributed the money among those whom they 
adjudged to be entitled to receive it. In regard to Spain, the sum thus 
apportioned was the amount which the United States agreed to pay for 
the transfer of Florida. The same principle was adopted in the adjust- 
ment of our claims upon France. The government carefully collected 
the evidence showino: the nature and amount of the losses which had 
been sustained by its citizens ; adjusted with France the legal points, so 
as to show what particular classes of cases were provided for, and what 
were excluded ; received a gross sum in liquidation of the whole ; and 



108 

submitted the distribution to a board of its own citizens. This last 
class of cases was, in every respect, a compromise between the govern- 
ments. 

It is well understood that the administration which made the arrange- 
ment with Mexico, under vrhich a mixed commission was created, 
adopted that measure with the greatest reluctance. It was in a manner 
forced upon them by a powerful party in Congress, who were unwilling 
to place in the hands of General Jackson the additional strength, which 
it was supposed would accrue by any warlike movement. It encounter- 
ed the serious opposition of several of the claimants, and has proved, as 
they predicted, in a great measure abortive. 

The lessons which have been taught by our experience under that 
arrangement, will induce the government seriously to pause before a 
similar measure shall be adopted. A recurrence to some prominent 
incidents which occurred in the history of that commission will illustrate, 
as well the insincerity and bad faith of Mexico, as the cruel injustice 
which was thus inflicted upon the American claimants. 

It will be recollected, that in consequence of the energetic language 
employed by Presidents Jackson and Van Buren, in reference to the 
manner in which Mexico had treated our demands, and the correspond- 
ing responses of both Houses of Congress in 1S37 and 1838, Mexico 
had reason to suppose that the cup of forbearance was well nigh exhaust- 
ed, and that the United States would no longer submit to the daily 
repetition of her outrages, and the evasions with which every call upon 
her for justice was uniformly met. Under this apprehension, she de- 
spatched a minister to the United States, for the ostensible purpose of 
arranging the causes of controversy. Mr. Martinez arrived in the 
United States in October, 1837, having left Mexico a very short time 
after the promulgation of the decree of the Mexican government of May, 
1837, so severely and justly commented on by the Committee of Foreign 
Relations, in July, 1838. It clearly appears, from these facts, that 
while, on the one hand, the Executive and Congress of Mexico were 
proclaiming at home that the United States were the offending party, 
whose continued aggressions must be met by a prohibition of commercial 
intercourse, and even more hostile measures, the same government was 
apparently yielding to the importunate demands of the United States, 
and sending a minister for the single purpose of making arrangements 
for the wrongs she had herself perpetrated. A more palpable evidence 
of insincerity and duplicity can with difficulty be conceived. It was, 
however, only characteristic of all that followed. 

Although Mr. Martinez reached Washington in October, 1837, and 
the ostensible object of his mission was to form a treaty for the adjust- 



109 

ment of our complaints against his government ; yet it was not until 
the 9th July, 1838, that he received powers authorizing him to conclude 
and sign the treaty by w^liich that object was to be accomplisbed. (Doc. 
252, H. of Reps., 25th Congress, 3d sess.) 

These circumstances were ominous of what was to follow. On the 
10th September, 1838, a convention was signed between Mr. Forsyth, 
the American Secretary of State, and the Mexican minister, (ibid, p. 27). 
The twelfth Article of this convention provided, that the ratifications 
should be exchanged within the period of five months from this signa- 
ture. It was duly ratified by the United States ; but the time stipulated 
was permitted by Mexico to expire without a correspondent act on her 
part. This omission was never satisfactorily explained ; for the pre- 
tence set up, that the King of Prussia had declined to act as umpire, 
was not only a most preposterous pretext, but no doubt now exists that 
it was equally false. No credence was ever given to it by the American 
government. Thus is furnished additional evidence of the habitual bad 
faith of this nation, who arrogates to herself, in her conduct towards us, 
an exclusive claim to fidelity to her engagements. 

On the 11th April, 1839, the United States once more assented to a 
pacific arrangement of this subject, by signing a new convention. The 
14th Article provided, that the ratification should be exchanged within 
twelve months from the date of the signature, or sooner if possible. 
Yet the procrastinating and dilatory course of Mexico once more was 
manifested. It would have been dangerous again to permit this treaty 
to expire from her omission to perfect it ; but her action was so long 
delayed, that the ratifications were exchanged only as late as the 8th 
April, 1840. Three days more delay would have rendered the whole a 
nullity. 



No. X. 



We have arrived at the period when the convention of 1839 became 
solemnized and perfected, by the exchange of ratifications on the 8th of 
April, 1840. 

It now becomes our duty to exhibit the course which Mexico pur- 
sued, to prevent this treaty from fulfilling the hopes which had been 
entertained by the parties whose claims were provided for in it. Every 
artifice which the most refined ingenuity could invent, was resorted to ; 
every embarrassment was thrown in the way of the claimants ; every 
delay in the progress of the business of the board was interposed j 



110 

every quibble was employed to prevent the course of justice ; and, un- 
fortunately, these machinations proved but too successful. 

The third Article provided, that the board of commissioners created 
under it, should meet in the city of Washington, within three months 
after the exchange of the ratifications. This was the first act to be 
done. The time was duly notified, and the day fixed pursuant to the 
treaty was the 7th of July. This provision of the convention was 
broken by Mexico. The commissioners were not appointed by her 
until the 20th of June, and did not reach Washington until the 13th 
August. The government of the United States had then a perfect right 
to declare the whole arrangement at an end. 

The commissioners, however, assembled on the 17th August ; and, 
by the terms of the treaty, their functions were to expire in eighteen 
months from the time of the meeting of the board. It became a matter 
of some moment to Mexico, so to manage matters, that as large a por- 
tion of the time should be wasted as possible, and as little left for the 
actual transaction of business. The report of the American Commis- 
sioners, transmitted by the President to Congress, June 13, 1842, (Sen. 
Doc. 320, 27th Cong., 2d sess.,) will show how faithfully and exclu- 
sively these objects were pursued, and how successfully they were 
accomplished. It was not until the 28th of December, 1840 — more 
than four months after the first meeting of the board — that the first 
cause was brought before it for a hearing upon its merits. (Sen. Doc. 
64, 27th Cong., 1st sess.). Nearly one fourth of the entire period 
allotted for its existence had been consumed, before one step had been 
made in the actual business for which it had been created ; and on the 
26th of May, 1841 — five months later, and when more than half the 
time during which it was to continue had expired — but twelve cases had 
been definitely adjusted. 

In the conduct of the business, the Mexicans exhibited a disposition 
to thv/art its progress in every conceivable mode. No rules or regula- 
tions were adopted for the transaction of business ; no form prescribed 
for the claimants to pursue in the presentation of their cases ; in fact, 
they were utterly precluded from " all access to it, in person or by their 
agents ; and even the right to present or transmit directly to it any 
paper, document, or written proofs," (Ibid), These measures were 
resisted and combatted by the American members of the board, with 
equal earnestness and ability. They " considered them as erroneous, 
and they believed that the adoption of them would be very prejudicial, 
if not entirely destructive, to the interests of the complainants." The 
very constitution of tlie board, composed of two representatives of each 
country, precluded the possibility of arriving at anv satisfactory result ; 



Ill 

and the ^.lexicaus would have been completely successful in the accom- 
plishment of all their designs, and would have prevented a decision in 
any one case, but that the American members of the board, " seeing no 
prospect of coming to an agreement on this important point, and it not 
being one which, according to the provisions in the convention, could 
be submitted to the umpire," acquiesced in a wrong which they had no 
power to prevent or redress, " under an apprehension that the objects of 
the two governments in instituting the commission " would be defeated. 
This was done so as to leave it to the claimants, " at their option, to 
avail themselves of the circuitous mode of getting their cases before the 
board." The American Commissioners inform their government, that 
" as all the efforts of the undersigned to procure for them (the claimants) 
the exercise of their just rights had been unavailing, and to insist upon 
its being assented to by their colleagues would have rendered the con- 
vention entirely abortive, the undersigned consented to proceed in the 
business for which the board was organized, without obtaining from 
their colleagues, a recognition of the obvious right of the claimants of a 
direct access to the board." — (Ibid.) 

What were the prospects of a fair and impartial hearing before a 
tribunal to which the complaining party was prohibited access, either in 
person or by his agents — where no written communication from him 
would be received — where he could present no evidence to substantiate 
his claim, no argument to establish his rights — where testimony against 
him was received which he was not allowed to know of, and reasons 
assigned for rejecting his demands which he was forbidden to hear — 
may well be conceived by all who have experience in judicial matters. 

The subject vras brought under the notice of the government as early 
as October, 1840, by some of the parties, in a memorial, of which we 
shall present an extract : 

" In the first place, we would suggest whether the entire design and 
object of the government of the United States has not been evaded, or 
counteracted, by that of Mexico. No doubt exists in our minds, that 
our own government, in the convention with Mexico, designed to create 
a judicial tribunal, which should, under all the high sanctions of the 
judicial character, examine into and adjudicate upon the merits of the 
several claims which might be submitted to its decision. The uniform 
practice in similar cases, the language of the convention itself, the 
phraseology of the act of Congress which was passed to carry it into 
effect, and the clear and distinct communication of this design throughout 
the negotiations which terminated in this arrangement, one and all, are 
too plain to admit of a doubt upon this subject. 

" Such, however, we apprehend, was not the design of the I\Iexican 



112 

government ; and such, unquestionally, is not the view taken of the 
matter by the IMexican commissioners. The journals of the board show 
that, upon this point, a wide and essential (and, we believe, an irrecon- 
cileable) difference subsists between the members. The Mexican 
commissioners, if we are correctly informed, refuse to consider the board 
as possessing the character of a judicial tribunal, or as invested with its 
functions ; they refuse to recognize it as created for the purpose of 
investigating the cases in conformity with the principles which nmst 
necessarily regulate such bodies ; they refuse to permit the parties to 
appear before them, in person or by attorney, to exhibit their own cases, 
apply their own testimony", and hear the allegations and evidence which 
may be adduced against them ; they refuse to make and enounce such 
rules and regulations as every properly-constituted judicial tribunal must 
necessarily have, to govern its own proceedings, and to guide the action 
of the parties litigant. A preliminary difficult}^ is thus presented, which, 
in the opinion of the claimants, threatens to render the whole convention 
nugatory, and, indeed, worse than useless." 

Another peculiarity characterized the proceedings of Mexico, in the 
execution of this convention, which indicates an entire departure, as 
well from good faith as from the most obvious principles of justice. By 
the first Article of the treaty of 1S39, it was expressly required, that " the 
said commissioners should be sworn impartially to examine and decide 
upon the said claims, according to such evidence as shall be laid before 
them" by the parties respectively. Before the signature of the treaty, 
in answer to a suggestion of Mr. Martinez, Mr. Forsyth remarked, that, 
" as the commission will be a sort of joint judicial tribunal, it does not 
appear to be proper that there should be instructions to it from the 
Executive of either country." This declaration was tacitly concurred 
in, and most faithfully adhered to by the United States. Mexico, how- 
ever, insidiously disregarded this at least implied pledge. The very 
commissions issued by her government required each of her representa- 
tives to execute his functions, " in entire conformity with the instructions 
that are issued to him for the better execution of so important a commis- 
sion." That such instructions were, in fact, given and followed, the 
conduct of these individuals furnished the most pregnant evidence. But 
it is now placed beyond the reach of doubt, by the testimony of a com- 
petent and well-informed witness, who says, that " while in Mexico, I 
was led to believe, from intimations which I received from a reliable 
source, that the comnn'ssioners appointed on the part of Mexico, under 
the late convention, had instructions to render the convention abortive, 
by the delay and procrastination of the business of the board, beyond the 
time limited in the convention for the adjustment of said claims. I 



113 

believe that such instructions were given — not in writing, but verbally 
— by those intrusted at the time with the Mexican government." " I 
am not at liberty to disclose the source from which I obtained this 
information, but I believe it to be entitled to every confidence." With 
great moderation of language did the Committee of Foreign Relations, 
in their report of the 27th of August, 1842, express themselves on this 
point. They say, that they " cannot but perceive that the instructions 
under which those commissioners acted, and the course they pursued, in 
the organization, proceedings, and final action of the commission, were 
of most questionable validity, and operated to the serious injury of the 
parties interested, so as to impair, if not to defeat, many of the beneficial 
purposes contemplated by the convention." The Comnaittee further 
expresses its opinion, that this, with others connected with the same 
subject, '' are questions, in their present stage, for the consideration of 
the Executive, and for negotiation between the two governments." 

This subject was adverted to in the communication already cited from 
some of the claimants to the Department of State, of October 10, 1840. 
It is there said : " The claimants have no means of knowing whether 
the instructions accompanying the powers under which the Mexican 
commissioners act, and which, according to our understanding, constitute 
an essential part of those powers, have been in any way communicated 
to our government. It does, however, appear to them, in the absence 
of any information on this point, that it is contrary to every idea they 
have ever attached to a judicial tribunal, that the judges should be com- 
missioned to decide in conformity with instructions given by one of the 
parties litigant, and that such instructions should furnish the measure of 
their powers. Nor is this apparent incongruity diminished by the fact, 
that a moiety of the court is required to act under powers, and its judi- 
cial discretion is to be guided by rules, which their associates neither 
know nor recognize. Unless, therefore, these anomalies, thus exhibited 
on the face of the documents, and illustrated by the proceedings of the 
board, shall have been obviated by other circumstances unknown to the 
claimants, we would respectfully suggest to the consideration of the 
Executive, whether there does not exist an inherent and vital defect in 
the organization of this tribunal, rendering it wholly incompetent to the 
performance of the duties imposed on it by the terms and provisions of 
the convention ; whether this defect has been the result of mere inad- 
vertence ; or whether it does not indicate, on the part of the Mexican 
government, a want of that frankness and candor which we had a right 
to anticipate at its hands ?" 

Here is presented another specimen of the solicitude of Mexico faith- 
fially to adhere to her engagements ! 
8 



No. XI. 

Much of what has been said on the two first classes of the claims of 
citizens of the United States against Mexico, is equally applicable to the 
third. These are those in which the Examination was not fully com- 
pleted, or was altogether prevented, and were therefore left unadjudi- 
cated, in consequence either of Mexico failing to produce the evidence 
which, under the treaty, she was bound to furnish, or because the 
Mexican Commissioners persevered in carrying out the instructions of 
their government, to resort to any expedients which might render the 
convention abortive. 

It has been shown, that five months, out of the eighteen prescribed for 
the duration of the board, were consumed in vain efforts to establish 
some rules for the methodical transaction of the business for which it 
had been created, and for the guidance of the complainants in the pre- 
paration and exhibition of their cases. 

In their communication of March 2, 1842, to the Secretary of State, 
the American Commissioners say : " It is very certain that all the 
objects contemplated by the convention have not been fully accom- 
plished. A number of important claims, coming within the cognizance 
of the commission, have not been adjusted. Upon whom rests the 
responsibility of this partial failure, is a question not to be settled by the 
assertion or belief of ourselves, or of our late colleagues, but by an ap- 
peal to the facts recorded in the minutes of the board." — Doc. 320, pp. 
195, 196. " To this long delay, in the first place, in determining upon 
any mode whatever, by which the business of the board could be con- 
ducted, and then in the indirect and circuitous manner to which the 
claimants were eventually obliged to resort, for the purpose of getting 
their papers and documents before the commissioners, is, in our opinion, 
to be attributed, in some measure, the failure of the commission to 
examine all the cases before it, and to present them to the umpire in 
season for his decision thereon. Whatever detriment has resulted from 
this cause, must be attributed to such of the commissioners as erred in 
their construction of the conventions^' 

In reference to some particular cases, these gentlemen employ lan- 
guage much more emphatic and accusatory. They specify the case of 
the Topaz, in which, after adverting to the murder of the captain of that 
vessel, and the proceedings at Anahuac growing out of that outrage, and 
expressing their full persuasion '' that the whole proceedings at Anahuac 
were designed to cover up a most barbarous and cruel transaction," they 
add : " The object of the undersigned in commenting upon this case, is 



115 

not to present its merits, but only to show the true cause why it was 
not finally disposed of." " If the Mexican Commissioners had not caused 
action to be suspended on it for more than two months, and down to 
within one month of the expiration of the commission, it would doubt- 
less have been finally disposed of." " A like delay, for the same cause, 
took place in respect to the several claims growing out of the seizure of 
the Julius Caesar, Champion, and Louisiana, the condemnation of the 
two former, and the imprisonment of the persons on board them." 
" But for the suspension of action upon these cases, at the instance, and 
by the votes, of the Mexican Commissioners, on the allegation that 
they had been withdrawn from the cognizance of the board,* they doubt- 
less would have been sent to the umpire in season to have received his 
final judgment thereon." — Ihid^ page 253. 

Another instance, of a similar character, is presented in the case of 
Mr. William S. Parrott, which the American Commissioners made the 
subject of a special report, in which they fully demonstrate that Mexico 
violated the terms of the convention, by witholding papers, " by which 
an express stipulation in the convention, that government had come 
under an obligation" to furnish, and by transmitting such " as appeared 
on the face of them imperfect, and, in some material points, contradic- 
tory." They conclude their observations on this case in the following 
terms : " Finally, it appears quite evident to the undersigned, that the 
documents which were demanded and not furnished, were such as the 
government of Mexico was bound, under the fourth Article of the con- 
vention, to furnish ; that the requisition was sent out at the earhest 
period at which it could have been sent ; and that the want of those 
documents, for not furnishing which no adequate excuse has been given, 
is the cause why a final disposition was not made of this claim of Mr. 
Parrott." 

Such was the open and undisguised infraction of treaties and perver- 
sion of justice in this last cited case, that Mr. Upshur, in his despatch of 
the 25th of July, 1843, (Doc. 158) thus adverts to it : "The conduct 
of Mexico, as it seems to me, had made it the duty of the United States 
to insist on prompt and specific relief, so far as this case is concerned. 
She has rendered herself liable to the charge of having broken her faith, 
and disregarded her obligations. She has not complied with a single 
stipulation of the fourth Article of the convention of 1839. She has not 
even prof essed to have produced a large number of the documents called 
for, and many of those which she did produce were either imperfect or 
grossly falsified. The American Commissioners complained of this, but 
without redress ; and to add to the injuries and contemptuous conduct 

* All of which was a sheer fabrication. 



116 

of the Mexican Commissioners, they took back with them, against the 
assent and remonstrances of the American Commissioners, and of the 
Secretary of State, all the falsified and imperfect docum.ents which they 
had submitted. All this will fully appear from the enclosed extracts 
from the proceedings of the board. It is quite evident that, so far as 
this claimant is concerned, he can have little hope of success before a 
new commission. He must necessarily rely on the same evidence 
which he has heretofore applied for in vain, and he must make his 
demand on the same government which has heretofore treated the same 
demand with neglect and contempt." 

In reference, then, to this third class of cases, if would seem that 
Mexico can have no further claim, on the score of justice, to ask to be 
again heard. She has contemptuously declined to submit her cause to 
a tribunal of her own appointment. She has deliberately labored, by 
the most dishonorable machinations, to defeat the very treaty to which 
she had set her seal, and to the faithful performance of which she was 
bound by all the obligations of official and national honor. She has 
endeavored to impose on this tribunal, false and forged testimony, and 
then purloined the very documents by which the truth of this accusation 
was to be established. It would, indeed, be a gross violation of justice 
to compel the claimants to encounter a second time the expense and 
labor of producing all their testimony, and of again trying their cases de 
novo. It would be equivalent to a deliberate surrender of their rights. 

It seems clearly to result, from these facts, that the failure on the 
part of the late board to adjust definitely all the cases which were 
brought before it, is imputable to the bad faith and disingenuous artifices 
of Mexico ; and that, in the particular instances which have been de- 
signated, specific circumstances of fraud and falsehood have been fixed 
and established against her ; — that, to subject the claimants to renewed 
litigation before another similarly constituted tribunal, would be equally 
unjust to them, and disgraceful to the nation. The honor of the Ame- 
rican government has been solemnly pledged, and it is with confidence 
hoped it will not be sullied. 

The last and only remaining class of cases comprehends such as were 
not submitted to the last board. The convention of 1839 limited the 
jurisdiction of the tribunal which it provided, to cases, statements of 
which had been presented to the Department of State, or the diplomatic 
agent of the United States in Mexico, prior to its signature. It conse- 
quently excluded all claims posterior to the 11th of April, 1839, and 
some of an earlier date. During the last six years, numerous cases 
have occurred equally demanding reparation. It is hoped they will not 
be allowed to grow hoary with antiquity before they shall be disposed of. 



117 

It has been shown that there is no precedent in our history which 
warrants the government, under the hke or analogous circumstances, in 
submitting the claims of its citizens to a mixed tribunal. It may well 
be questioned whether the spirit of our institutions does not prohibit it, 
unless with the consent of the claimants themselves. However this 
may be, the history of the past shows the inutihty and mockery of any 
such plan of adjustment with such a people and such a government as 
Mexico. The same disregard of justice which marked her constant 
violations of private right, equally characterize her in her judicial admin- 
istration. She is as reluctant to make retribution for the wrongful acts 
she has perpetrated, as she was unscrupulous in the commission of those 
outrages. ^ 

The matter is now in the hands of the government ; and the unfortu- 
nate victims of Mexican cruelty and Mexican duplicity will not permit 
themselves to doubt that, as their rights are now identified with the 
national faith and national honor, those rights will be enforced, and that 
honor be preserved unsullied. 



No. XIL 

It is presumed that no necessity exists to adduce further proof to 
establish the charge against Mexico, of being equally faithless in the 
fulfilment of her treaty engagements, or of the obligations imposed by 
the law of nations, and by the code of personal honor. Her highest 
functionaries have been shown to be guilty of an open disregard of truth, 
and of having resorted to the most contemptible and disgraceful crimes 
known on the Old Eailey calendar. Should additional testimony be 
required to fill up the measure of official and national turpitude, ample 
materials exist in the archives of the board of commissioners. It there 
distinctly and repeatedly appears, that Mexico transmitted spurious and 
forged documents to the board, as legal evidence in cases before it ; 
that her commissioners withdrew, from the public records of the board, 
and under false pretences, testimony which had been laid before it for 
its action ; that this was done against the remonstrances of their col- 
leagues, and in contempt of the decided objections of the American Sec- 
retary of State. These points, however, have been so frequently 
brought to the notice of Congress and the nation, that they must be 
familiar to all who have given any attention to the history of the rela- 
tions between the two countries. 

The far more important inquiry is, what is the course which it be- 



118 

comes the right and duty of the government of the United States to 
pursue in reference to the claims of our citizens upon that nation ? The 
question of duty has been long since settled. Without adverting to 
other instances in which it has been fully recognised by the government 
itself, in the most solemn and authentic form, a reference to the very 
explicit language employed by Mr. Upshur in his despatch of July 25, 
1843, may suf&ce : " The honor of the government is pledged to our 
own people for the diligent and proper prosecution of those claims. 
Mexico can no longer, consistently with her own honor, or the rights of 
our citizens, or what is due to this government, seek to delay the execu- 
tion of what justice so plainly requires at her hands." '' Atonement 
should have been made long ago for the numerous and flagrant wrongs 
done by that power to citizens of this country. Unnecessar}"" delays 
must not be submitted to, nor will slight excuses be received." 

Two years have elapsed since this declaration was made. " Unne- 
cessary delays" have been "submitted to," and "slight excuses" have 
not been " received," only because none, however slight, have been 
offered. Eighteen months have passed since Mexico has had in her 
hands a treaty sanctioned by the Executive and Senate of the United 
States, which falls short — very far short — of carrying out all the 
acknowledged obligations of our government. The minister who nego- 
tiated it, in several important particulars deviated from his instructions, 
and always to the disadvantage of the claimants. Its terms and stipula- 
tions, if adopted, would work the most manifest injustice to the claim- 
ants, and are such that nothing but despair of ever attaining justice could 
induce them to acquiesce in. For eighteen months Mexico has omitted 
to give it her ratification. It has become a caput mortuum; and no 
excuse, no apology, no explanation has been tendered to an insulted 
nation for this act of contemptuous disregard of her most conciliatory and 
yielding offers. The honor, the dignity of the nation, imperatively 
demands that no similar proposition should be again entertained. The 
experience of the past has painfully and severely taught the claimants, 
(and it is hoped the lessons have not been thrown away upon the gov- 
ernment), that, under such a convention as that projected, the interests 
of the one would be sacrificed, and the honor of the other prostituted. 
Under no circumstances, should such an arrangement be again sanc- 
tioned ; nor, unless under other and far better guarantees than such 
as appear in that projet, should any mixed commission be again estab- 
lished. 

What course, then, is left open ? The claims against Mexico may 
now be arranged under four distinct classes : First, such as have been 
already adjudicated by the former board. These may be recognized as 



119 

settled definitely, excepting so far as fraud and forged papers, and sup- 
pressions of evidence, in derogation of treaty engagements, can be shown. 
Secondly, such as have passed through the ordeal of a full investigation 
in the presence of the commissioners of both parties. Thirdly, those 
which, owing to the impediments interposed by the government of Mex- 
ico, or her functionaries, were left unadjusted. Fourthly, those which 
were never exhibited to the former board, whether they occurred before 
or since the time limited by the convention of 1839. 

The first class has been settled by the adjudications of the board ; 
and, although much injustice has been wrought by those decisions, they 
should, perhaps, be allowed to stand, unless the claimants can establish, 
by distinct testimony, that injustice has been perpetrated through false 
or forged papers, or by the withholding of evidence which Mexico was 
bound to furnish. Three years and a half have elapsed since the last of 
these cases was decided. By the convention of September, 1838, it was 
agreed that Mexico should forthwith pay the whole sum awarded against 
her, by furnishing such an amount of her evidences of public debt as 
should realize in the London market whatever might be found due by 
her. This arrangement was, as we have seen, allowed to expire by 
the non-ratification of the convention by Mexico. The substituted 
treaty of 1839 provided that Mexico should pay the sums awarded in 
treasury notes, which should be receivable at her custom-houses in 
payment of duties, should it prove inconvenient for her to pay the whole 
promptly in gold or silver. At her solicitation, and for her accommoda- 
tion, by the convention of the 30th January, 1843, further indulgence 
was given. She was allowed until April, 1843, to pay the arrearages 
of interest ; and the principal, with the subsequently accruing interest, 
was to be paid within five years from that date, in equal quarterly instal- 
ments. Three of these instalments were paid with something like punc- 
tuality. Since January, 1844, not a farthing has been paid which has 
ever reached the claimants. On the 31st July, 1845, six instalments 
will be in arrear to them. The right to postponement has been for- 
feited by this omission. By the terms of the convention of 1843, all the 
internal duties of the nation were pledged as a fund for these payments ; 
that fund has been diverted from this purpose, and thus again the treaty 
has been broken. The claimants have the right to insist and call upon 
their government, under these circumstances, to demand the prompt 
Hquidation of what is due them. As Mexico has thought proper to sus- 
pend all diplomatic relations between the governments, this branch of 
the case should be definitely closed. We can no longer call upon them 
for their quarterly instalments. 

The second class comprehends cases which have been examined by 



120 

the joint commission, and upon which both parties have been heard. 
The reasons of the one for >?,ilowing', and of the other for disallowing, 
have been fully given. The diplomatic intercourse between the two 
governments is closed, and the American Executive is in possession of 
ample materials upon which its judgment can be exercised. The views 
and opinions of the able men who represented the United States are 
before them ; the objections of Mexico are fully stated. Both parties 
have been heard — so far, at least, as the American commissioners can 
be understood as representing the claimants. Every solemnity has been 
observed — every objection heard ; and the parties cannot but hope and 
expect that this government will recognise as final and conclusive the 
judgment of those whom they have invested with these high functions. 
So far as these cases have thus been acted on. the character of the claim 
ought to be considered as adjudicated, and the amount of compensation 
settled definitely and for ever. After Mexico has pursued the course 
which it has been shown she has done — after she has abstracted from the 
archives of the convention the evidence upon which claims were sus- 
tained — she cannot, with any show of justice or reason, ask to be at 
liberty to compel the parties again to reproduce that testimony, and 
prove their cases over again. It is a received maxim of positive law in 
very community where law exists, that presumption exists in odium spo- 
Uatoris. In every aspect in which the case can be viewed, Mexico 
occupies this position. She was the spoliator in committing the original 
wrong. She is the spoliator in withholding the evidence which she had 
solemnly promised to furnish, or in fabricating false testimony. She 
is the spoliator in appropriating to herself the very evidence which had 
been produced to establish her responsibihty. 



A CHEAP, USEFUL, ELEGANT, AND FASHIONABLE 

BOOK FOR A PRESENT. 

PRICE ONLY 35 CENTS. 

With a correct Likeness of Count D''Orsay — the handsomest man in England, 



JUST PUBLISHED, 
Complete in one number of the Brother 

Jonathan Monthly Library, 

ETIQUETTE, 

ORj A 

Guide to the Usages of Society, 

WITH A GLANCE AT BAD HABITS. 

"SIANNERS MAKE THE MAN." 

E'Y COUNT ALFRED D'ORSAY, 

WITH A CORRECT LIKENESS OF THE AVTHOR EN. 

GRAVED ON STEEL. 

To which is added, the only true tlieory of the 
Rhenish or Sjianish Waltz, and of the Ger- 
man Waltz d Deux Temps, now analyzed 
and explained for the first time. 

Waltz' Ag is the Art of a Gentleman, and never yet 
waL tauglit or understood by a Dancing-master. 

Among the various subjects which this cu- 
rious original treatise sets forth, are the fol- 
. owing : 

I. General Observations on Etiquette 
— ideas of unthinking persons on the usages 
of society, &c. 

II. Introduction — how they should be ef- 
fected, and when persons should or should not 
be introduced ; meeting a friend with a lady 
when you are unacquainted with her ; the sci- 
ence of cutting an acquaintance ; slighting a 
friend. 

HI. Of Letters of Introduction — the 
manner they sliould be written, despatched, 
presented, or received ; how to treat a new 
acquaintance introduced by letter; prompt- 
ness in answering letters. 

IV. Of Marriage — the duties of those 
about to be married toward their friends ; how 
Old Bachelors should behave under such cir- 
cumstances ; advice to newly-married people. 

V. Of Dinners — the Etiquetteof a Dinner 
Party ; directions for the Master or Mistress 
of tUe house ; instructions for gentlemen 
guests ; the arrangement of the party at table ; 
advice relative to ireneral deportment at ta- 
ble ; taking v/iae with a lady ; how to furnish 
and layout the table; behavior toward ser- 
vants at table ; forms to be observed in wait- 
ing on a lady at table; advice to ladies; the 
.science of eating and drinl<ing. 

VI. Of Smoking and Snuff'-taking — re- 
atriclions to be observed ; when, where, and 
how, to smoke or take snuff, 

VII. Of Dress and Fashions — to what 
extent fashions should be adopted, addressed 
to both ladies and gentlerncr ; grand points 
to be observed in dress ; when io wear gloves ; 
when to wear jewelry ; remarks on neatness 
i.i dress. 



VIII. Of Music in General Society— 
highly gifted musicians in private society j 
when a lady should sing or play ; the duties 
of listeners. 

IX. Of Dancing — the Etiquette of the 
Ball-room ; duty of the master of ceremonies ; 
when and how to apply for a partner ; pre- 
sentation to a lady with whom you are not 
acquainted ; the lady's part ; color of gloves 
to be worn at a ball ; how to lead a lady 
through the quadrille ; behavior to be ob- 
served in the quadrille and waltz ; of the 
steps ; the treatment of a slight from an ac 
quaintance in the ball-rDom, &c. > 

X. Of Conversation — picture of an ego- 
tist ; when to avoid an argument ; fidelity to 
truth ; getting in a passion ; defence of your 
friends ; talking to and at people ; lessons in 
talking ; tone of voice ; talking too largely ; 
vulgar terms to be avoided ; caution to pa- 
rents ; directions to a gentleman in addressing 
a lady ; advice to trades-people. 

XI. Of Visiting — the time to visit a lady; 
when to leave your card ; duration of a call ; 
when to place your hat in the hallj strict 
rules to be observed. 

XIT. Of Visiting Cards — how they should 
be worde(?, and when they should be left, and 
when sent ; instructions for married ladies j 
general directions relative to wedding cards j 
invitations to dinners, balls, or parties ; invi- 
tations to christenings or funerals. 

XIII. Of Tattling— -usages of good soci- 
ety ; caution to those who repeat the conver- 
sations of others ; some advice to young 
ladies ; danger of badinage toward duU peo- 
ple. 

XIV. Of General Society — deportment 
toward a lady of jour acquaintance in the 
street ; handing a lady to a carriage ; shaking 
hands with a lady ; behavior in the box of a 
theatre; visiting a coffee-house ; saluting a 
friend publicly ; respect to be shown great 
people ; trent.ment of guests ; vulgarity de- 
fined ; how to olfer a favor; rule to be ob- 
served when inviting a friend to ride ; man- 
ner of saluting a lady in company ; general 
directions in addressing letters ; rules to be 
always observed when visiting ; the index of 
a vacant mind ; queer notions of ill-bred peo- 
ple ; postage on letters ; ceremony — when it 
may be dispensed with ; the true test of a gen- 
tleman. 

Tliis reinarkalile work is printed on superfine pa- 
per, in clear and beautiful type, cornptete in one No 
of llio Drother Jonathan Munliily J-ibrary. It may 
tliorcforo be sent to any part of the United Stales fo"r 
Uio postage of a two-siiect period/cal. namely, undei 
I(!0 uiilcs 3 cents, a greater distance 5 cents. - Price 
2h cents per copy, or 5 copies for one dollar. 

^ otters should be addressed to 

WILSON & COMPANY, Publishers, 
New York* 



J/iM a ^ 



r<> 






"'6. 



%." 













.# 



'^^o^ 














'-'^^^s^* o i 



- - ^' iV- cy 'f 





















<. 



^0^ 



oo\-r^^^C^^ 



-^fCvWA/o %^Q^ 



>^ 



O' . 




a> Q. 









^' "' ^^'-^'""- — -.-.0^ ....,..._. 















oO"' ^^ ^ 






-S-^' 















,^o^. 









^ 

%. 












^ r 



^O. ''' 









^^"^ ■.--■" 



^ «<^ ^ ^ ^ 






^0' 



>'%^ 



rO 



^^^ 



>0^' 






- i; 















'*: 









■ s^^ 



.f 






V 






<'. 





















O^ '' 









rd" ^ ^ " '^ A 






-%. \> ^ >- 



."^^ -6 






%. 




-0^ 












,<^ ^^. 










